# Mary Beasley v. Arron Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 26, 2013 · 539 F. App'x 288

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042203

## Case

- **Full name:** 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
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 26, 2013
- **Citations:** 539 F. App'x 288
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Thacker, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042203

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1042203. Public record. Not legal advice.