The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1552
MARY E. BEASLEY, Personal Representative for Estate of
Darryl E. Beasley,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARRON BROWN; RENEE BROTHERS; ANTHONY ANDERSON; OFFICER
HENDERSON; KENNETH KEPLEY, Captain,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David P. Morgan, CRAVENS & NOLL PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. William F. Etherington, Leslie A. Winneberger,
BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mary E. Beasley (“Beasley”) appeals the district
court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
in her civil action alleging Defendants used excessive force
against her son, Darryl Beasley, in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006), resulting in his death. Beasley further asserted
common law state claims of wrongful death and conspiracy. The
district court concluded that Beasley failed to produce evidence
establishing that Defendants’ conduct violated the decedent’s
constitutional rights and that, even if a violation occurred,
Defendants’ actions were not so unreasonable as to place them
outside the scope of qualified immunity. The district court
further denied relief on Beasley’s state law claims.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s order
granting summary judgment. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605,
607 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment shall be granted when
“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). “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only
if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.” Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A district court should grant summary judgment unless
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
2
on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). An otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by the
existence of any factual dispute; “[o]nly disputes over facts
that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id.
at 248. “Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice,
nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of” the
nonmoving party’s case. Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials
submitted on appeal and conclude that the district court did not
err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Beasley v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL (E.D. Va.
Mar. 27, 2013). 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