Debra Smith v. Sam's East, Incorporated , 672 F. App'x 311 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1736
DEBRA R. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAM’S EAST, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lynn Tate, TATE LAW PC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.
W. Bradford Stallard, P. Danielle Stone, PENN, STUART &
ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debra R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Sam’s East, Inc., in her personal
injury action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order
granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the
Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district
court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 568(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether
a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and
all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most
favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving
party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere
speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the
mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather,
731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).
We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Smith v. Sam’s East, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS
2
(W.D. Va. June 7, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3