Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on a Florida-based construction project, where Westerfeld Construction by Glick, LLC served as the general contractor. Westerfeld, a Florida company, retained Jessup Construction, LLC as a subcontractor. Jessup and GSH of Alabama, LLC entered into a joint venture to work on the project and later obtained a $5.8 million loan from Mobilization Funding, LLC, a company with operations in South Carolina. The loan contracts involved Mobilization Funding, Jessup, GSH, and individual guarantors, and included South Carolina choice-of-law and venue provisions. Westerfeld was not a party to these loan contracts. When Jessup allegedly defaulted, Mobilization Funding sued Jessup, GSH, and the guarantors in South Carolina, and GSH, joined by individual guarantors, brought third-party claims against Westerfeld, alleging conspiracy and fraud.After removal, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed Westerfeld’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Applying the prima facie standard, the district court held that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over Westerfeld. The court found Westerfeld had no offices, employees, or business activities in South Carolina and was not party to any South Carolina-centered agreements. The court also determined that GSH’s conspiracy allegations were conclusory and did not plausibly tie Westerfeld to conduct in South Carolina sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the third-party complaint against Westerfeld and certified its order as final.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Westerfeld did not have sufficient minimum contacts with South Carolina to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. The court rejected both direct and conspiracy-based theories of jurisdiction, concluding that GSH failed to present plausible, particularized facts to support jurisdiction over Westerfeld. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Stokes v. Westerfeld Construction by Glick, LLC" on Justia Law

Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, operated by Derek and Jacqueline Calhoun, began providing beach equipment rentals and setup services on public beaches in the City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, starting in 2020. The City informed CGBG that its activities violated local ordinances, but the company continued operating despite repeated warnings and complaints from competitors. In response, the City enacted a new ordinance in June 2022 that explicitly restricted professional setup of beach equipment on City beaches to City officials only. CGBG persisted with its services and received several citations for noncompliance.Following these actions, CGBG filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging that the City had unlawfully established a monopoly over beach equipment rentals and setup services, violating federal antitrust law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, determining that the municipal ordinances qualified for state action immunity from federal antitrust liability under the Parker doctrine, based on relevant South Carolina statutes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the South Carolina statutes in question clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy allowing municipalities to create exclusive franchises for beach equipment rentals and setup, and that the anticompetitive effects were a foreseeable result of this legislative authorization. The court also rejected CGBG’s argument for a “market participant exception” to state action immunity, noting that precedent does not recognize such an exception. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the City is entitled to state action immunity and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC v. City of North Myrtle Beach" on Justia Law

Several individuals attended a Loudoun County School Board meeting intending to speak during the public-comment period about recent news involving the Board’s reinstatement of a student who had previously been arrested and allegedly threatened another student. They wished to express concerns regarding the Board’s handling of school safety, particularly in relation to this specific student. During the meeting, the School Board Chair interrupted several of these individuals, invoking a Board policy that prohibits speakers from targeting, criticizing, or attacking individual students during public comments, and advised that such concerns should instead be directed privately to school officials.After these interruptions, the affected individuals filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Their complaint alleged that, as applied to them, the Board’s policy constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, and that the policy was unconstitutionally vague. They sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy against them. The district court denied both requests, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on either claim. The court found that the policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction appropriate to the limited public forum of the school board’s meetings, and that the interruptions were consistent with the policy’s facial requirements, not discriminatory based on viewpoint. Furthermore, the court determined that the policy language—prohibiting comments that “target, criticize, or attack individual students”—was not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice and guidance for enforcement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Platt v. Mansfield" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old boy and his friend were waiting for transportation under a carport near the boy’s home when they were approached by an off-duty Baltimore City police officer who had just returned from firearms training. The officer, dressed in plain clothes and carrying a loaded handgun, questioned the boys about their presence in the neighborhood. After a brief exchange, the officer brandished his gun at “low ready,” causing the boys to fear for their lives. The incident had a lasting traumatic effect on the boy, resulting in emotional distress, behavioral changes, and ultimately leading him to attend a boarding school to distance himself from the event.The boy filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the officer, the Baltimore Police Department, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the State of Maryland. All claims against the institutional defendants were dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and some claims against the officer were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the district court submitted to the jury both constitutional claims and state law gross negligence claims, including gross negligence in the officer’s capacity as a private person. The jury found for the officer on constitutional claims but found him grossly negligent as a private person, awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional harm. The officer moved to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, arguing lack of notice on the private person claim and excessiveness of damages, but the district court denied the motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence as a private person and that the officer had notice of this claim. The court rejected the officer’s arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction, plain error in jury instructions, and excessiveness of damages, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error by the district court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Durant" on Justia Law

A dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, the defendant traveled from the U.S. to Pakistan in 2009, along with four others, with the intent to join jihad in Afghanistan. Upon arrival, the group attempted to make contact with terrorist organizations and made efforts to cross into Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities arrested them in Sargodha, Pakistan, and subsequently tried and convicted them on terrorism-related offenses. The defendant served approximately ten years in a Pakistani prison. After completing his sentence, he was extradited to the United States, where he faced federal charges arising from the same underlying conduct.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arraigned the defendant and, after he waived his Speedy Trial Act rights, considered his motion to dismiss the indictment on Sixth Amendment speedy trial grounds. The motion argued that the government’s delay in seeking his extradition and prosecution in the U.S. violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the motion, finding that, although the length of the delay was significant, the government made reasonably diligent and good-faith efforts to secure his return, and the remaining factors weighed against finding a violation. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the speedy trial ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision, applying the four-factor balancing test from Barker v. Wingo. The appellate court agreed that only the length of the delay favored the defendant, but reasoned that the government’s efforts, the defendant’s own conduct in resisting extradition, and the absence of actual prejudice outweighed that factor. The court held there was no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation and affirmed the conviction. View "US v. Chaudhry" on Justia Law

Crystal Hultz, a woman born in 1987, stopped working full-time in December 2013 due to multiple health conditions, including lupus, fibromyalgia, spinal disorders, and depression. Although some of her conditions improved with treatment and surgery, she continued to experience severe, persistent symptoms of fibromyalgia, leading to fatigue and periods of being bedridden. Her daily functioning depended heavily on support from her family. Based on these ongoing symptoms, Hultz applied for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that her fibromyalgia and related health problems rendered her unable to work.Her claims for benefits were initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and again after reconsideration. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her applications, a decision upheld by the SSA's Appeals Council. Hultz sought review in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration of certain impairments. On remand, another ALJ again denied benefits, finding that Hultz's subjective reports of her symptoms were not fully supported by objective medical evidence. The District Court affirmed this denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the ALJ erred by discounting Hultz’s subjective testimony about her fibromyalgia symptoms based on a lack of objective medical evidence. The Fourth Circuit emphasized its precedent that, for conditions like fibromyalgia—which cannot be measured by objective tests—ALJs may not use the absence of such evidence to discredit claimants’ subjective accounts. The court also held that the ALJ improperly gave little weight to the opinion of Hultz’s treating physician. The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case for a calculation of benefits. View "Hultz v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

A Black woman who had worked for a community college for nearly two decades applied for a promotion to Assistant Dean of Workforce Solutions after serving as Director of Special Populations. The position required significant experience in workforce development, including knowledge of specific funding and grant-writing. The applicant pool included her and a Hispanic male colleague who had overseen larger programs and had more direct experience with the job’s requirements. A search committee interviewed candidates, with the final hiring decision made by the Vice President of Enrollment and Outreach Initiatives.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed her claims of race and gender discrimination under Title VII. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded in part, allowing her to pursue a disparate treatment claim focused on the college’s failure to promote her and its issuance of a corrective action letter for a payroll error. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the college, finding that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination, and that the employer’s stated reason—selecting the more qualified candidate—was not shown to be pretextual.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court assumed that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination but held that she did not meet her burden to show the employer’s justification was pretext. The court found that the selected candidate’s qualifications aligned more closely with the position, and that neither evidence of preselection, circumstantial evidence of discriminatory comments, nor disparate discipline sufficed to demonstrate intentional discrimination or pretext. The court thus affirmed the judgment in favor of the college. View "Hood-Wilson v. Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty in 2020 to two counts of distributing a mixture containing heroin and fentanyl, in violation of federal drug laws. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined he qualified as a career offender, which substantially increased his advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines. The court ultimately imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release.Subsequently, the defendant moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that changes in the law meant he would not now be classified as a career offender, and, therefore, his Guidelines range would be much lower if sentenced today. He asked the court to reduce his sentence to time served. The district court found that the significant difference between his original and recalculated Guidelines ranges constituted an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for a sentence reduction. However, the court ultimately denied the motion, concluding that the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—particularly the defendant’s lengthy and serious criminal history and the need to promote respect for the law—outweighed his arguments for release. The court also noted his rehabilitative efforts but found them insufficient to demonstrate a reduced danger to the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed only whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for compassionate release. Applying a deferential standard, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court had considered all relevant arguments and provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. The appellate court affirmed the denial of compassionate release, holding that the district court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally and satisfied all statutory requirements in its analysis. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Drug task force officers in West Virginia observed a car with expired registration, dark window tint, and a malfunctioning taillight, driven by Cornelious Johnson—an individual known to them from a prior drug conviction and currently on federal supervised release. The officers watched as Johnson and his passenger interacted with a man, Jackie Byrd, at an apartment complex previously associated with drug investigations. Although the officers suspected a drug transaction, they did not witness any exchange of items. Shortly after, Tremayne Hawkins entered the back seat, and the car left the complex. Officer Stanley, informed by the task force, stopped the car for the observed traffic violations and, suspecting drug activity, separated and questioned the occupants about their interaction with Byrd. Citing minor inconsistencies in their answers, Stanley called for a K9 unit, which alerted to drugs. A subsequent search yielded a firearm on Hawkins, who admitted to being prohibited from possessing one due to a prior conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Hawkins’ motion to suppress the firearm, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on the area’s reputation, Johnson’s prior conviction, the observed interaction with Byrd, and the inconsistent statements from the occupants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Fourth Circuit held that none of the cited factors—alone or in combination—provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The court emphasized that presence in an area associated with prior investigations, a dated conviction, innocuous interactions, and minor, reconcilable inconsistencies in statements did not collectively amount to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "US v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

After divorcing in 2010, a former employee and his ex-spouse entered into a court-approved domestic relations order in North Carolina that divided his employer-sponsored retirement plan benefits. The order stipulated that the ex-spouse would be treated as a surviving spouse, entitling her to survivor benefits under the plan, and stated that her portion of the benefit "may be reduced as necessary" to cover the cost of the survivor annuity. Years later, when the employee retired and began receiving benefits, he argued that the plan administrator improperly reduced his monthly payment by factoring the cost of the survivor annuity into his share, rather than allocating the cost solely to his ex-spouse’s portion. He also claimed that the plan administrator failed to timely provide all requested plan documents, warranting statutory penalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for the employer and plan administrator. The court found that the plan administrator correctly interpreted the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to permit, but not require, allocating the cost of the survivor annuity to the ex-spouse’s share, and that the benefit calculation was consistent with the plan terms and not an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by any delay in receiving plan documents and denied statutory penalties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit concluded that de novo review was appropriate for interpreting the QDRO, while the plan administrator’s benefit calculations were reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court held that the QDRO’s language was unambiguous and permissive, not mandatory, regarding who should bear the cost of the survivor annuity. The court also upheld the denial of statutory penalties, finding no prejudice or bad faith. The district court’s summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Gasper v. EIDP, Inc." on Justia Law