Brett Davis v. City of Greensboro , 667 F. App'x 411 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2095
BRETT DAVIS; BRIAN CHRIS SMOOT; STEVE SZYMECZEK,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, North Carolina,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-2096
WENDY CHEEK; BRIAN KEITH COLLINS; JOSEPH CASEY COUNCILMAN;
WALTER STEVEN COUTURIER; TIMOTHY FIELDS; WILLIAM C. MORGAN,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-2097
MICHAEL BROWNELL; TRAYVEAWN GOODWIN; CHRISTIAN HICKS; TY
JENKS; PATRICK KENNEDY; GEORGE SIMMONS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-2098
DAVID MORGAN; ROGERS REYNOLDS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00888-CCE-JEP; 1:12-cv-00981-CCE-JEP;
1:12-cv-01311-CCE-JEP; 1:12-cv-01110-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: June 27, 2016 Decided: July 28, 2016
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Hill, Torin L. Fury, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Danielle N. Godfrey, PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants, current and retired police officers and
firefighters for the City of Greensboro, appeal the district
court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the City on
the Appellants’ claims related to the City’s reduction and
termination of a longevity pay program and the City’s failure to
provide retirement benefits for off-duty work performed by
police officers. We review de novo a district court’s order
granting summary judgment, viewing facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Newport News Holdings
Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 434 (4th Cir.
2011). A court must 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.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). “‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
return a verdict for that party.’” Newport News, 650 F.3d at
434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986)).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for
the City on the claims challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4