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

A miner who worked in West Virginia coal mines for nearly four decades applied for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act after retiring in 2015. From mid-2012 through December 2014, he worked for Rhino Energy, LLC as a subcontractor in mines owned by Wildcat Energy, LLC. When Rhino’s subcontract ended, he joined Wildcat’s payroll and continued working at Wildcat until his retirement in October 2015. The dispute centers on which employer—Rhino or Wildcat—should be responsible for paying his black lung benefits.After the miner filed his claim, the district director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs designated Rhino as the responsible operator, finding that Wildcat had not employed the miner for the full year required by regulations and thus was not a potentially liable operator. The district director did not address Wildcat’s financial capacity, nor did he issue a Coverage Statement regarding Wildcat’s insurance status. Rhino contested its designation, arguing Wildcat should be responsible, including as a successor operator, but the district director and subsequently the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reaffirmed Rhino’s liability, focusing on the duration of Wildcat’s employment. The Benefits Review Board upheld the ALJ’s decision, agreeing that Wildcat had not employed the miner for a year and noting Rhino had not demonstrated Wildcat’s financial capability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Board’s order. It held that under the correct interpretation of the regulations, Wildcat had employed the miner for the requisite year based on working days, and because the district director did not issue a Coverage Statement, Wildcat was presumed financially capable of paying benefits. The court determined Wildcat should have been designated as the responsible operator, but because regulations prohibit imposing liability on another operator at this stage, it vacated the Board’s order and remanded with instructions for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund to pay the miner’s benefits. View "Rhino Energy, LLC v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner was sentenced in December 2020 and, due to pending charges in another jurisdiction, was held at a detention center in Rhode Island rather than being promptly transferred to his designated Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility in South Carolina. During this period of post-sentencing detention, the prisoner claims to have participated in programs under the First Step Act (FSA), thereby accruing approximately 150 days of time credits, which could reduce his time in custody. However, the BOP did not recognize these credits because he had not undergone a formal risk and needs assessment—the BOP’s prerequisite for awarding such credits—until his eventual arrival at the designated facility in March 2022.After exhausting administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking recognition of his alleged FSA credits. The magistrate judge, without briefing or discovery, recommended dismissal. The district court adopted this recommendation, concluding that the BOP’s regulation reasonably required an initial assessment before credits could be earned, and applied Chevron deference to uphold the agency's interpretation. The district court also found no evidence the prisoner had “successfully participated” in qualifying programs before arrival at the BOP facility and dismissed the petition without prejudice, refusing to require a government response.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The Fourth Circuit held that the case was not moot, as the prisoner could still benefit from the FSA credits if his risk status changed or a warden approved his release. The court further held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, the district court must independently determine whether the BOP’s interpretation of “successful participation” aligns with the best reading of the statute. View "Benson v. Warden FCI Edgefield" on Justia Law

Patrick Nichols, while being arrested by two police officers in Bethesda, Maryland on outstanding warrants for theft, forgery, and burglary, alleges that he was subjected to excessive force. According to Nichols, one officer slammed him to the ground, breaking his left forearm in two places, while the other placed a knee on his throat, causing him to fear for his life and temporarily lose the ability to breathe. Nichols claims he did nothing to threaten the officers and that their use of force was unprovoked. Following his arrest, he required medical treatment for his injuries and continues to experience pain and stress.Nichols, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, initially filed a complaint naming only Officer Bumgarner in the caption, though he described the involvement of a second officer, Schmidt, in the body of his complaint. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Nichols’s complaint without prejudice, finding it lacked sufficient factual detail. Nichols then filed an amended complaint, again naming only Bumgarner in the caption but specifically describing Schmidt’s actions in the body. The district court dismissed the amended complaint as well, again for lack of specificity and treated the action as brought solely against Bumgarner, never acknowledging Schmidt as a defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It found that the district court erred in treating the complaint as only against Bumgarner rather than both officers, given the content of the complaints and the pro se status of Nichols. The Fourth Circuit also held that Nichols’s amended complaint stated a plausible excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment, given the serious injuries alleged and the facts construed in Nichols’s favor. The appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Nichols v. Bumgarner" on Justia Law

An Afghan infant was orphaned and injured during a joint U.S.-Afghan military operation and received emergency care at a U.S. military hospital. A U.S. Marine Corps Judge Advocate, Major Joshua Mast, and his wife, Stephanie Mast, initiated custody proceedings and ultimately obtained a Virginia adoption order for the child. Separately, the U.S. Embassy gave custody to a man claiming to be the child's uncle, and the infant was subsequently cared for by John and Jane Doe, who later evacuated from Afghanistan to the United States with the child during Operation Allies Refuge. After arriving in the U.S., the Masts took custody of the child. The Does then challenged the adoption in Virginia state court, but the Supreme Court of Virginia rejected their challenge.Following the state proceedings, the Does filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, seeking, among other things, a protective order to prevent the defendants from disclosing their identities. The district court granted the protective order, concluding that disclosing the Does’ identities would pose a substantial risk to their safety and that of their family in Afghanistan. The order prohibited the defendants and their representatives from revealing any information that could directly or indirectly identify the Does or their family members unless a non-disclosure agreement was executed. After the Does engaged with the media while maintaining anonymity, the Masts moved to vacate or modify the protective order, arguing it was an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The district court denied the motion and held Joshua Mast in contempt for violating the order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Fourth Circuit held that the protective order, while a content-based prior restraint, fit within a narrow exception because it was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in national security—specifically, the protection of individuals perceived as U.S. collaborators. The court found the order survived strict scrutiny and was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Doe v. Mast" on Justia Law

A federal inmate brought an action for damages against several officials at a federal prison, claiming they provided delayed or inadequate medical treatment and used excessive force against him during his incarceration. His allegations included delayed dental care, insufficient response to rectal bleeding, denial of participation in a mental health class, and the use of restraints and physical force during an incident involving his cellmate. He asserted that these actions violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his complaint, holding that a damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics was not available for his claims. The court reasoned that his claims, both for inadequate medical care and excessive force, presented new contexts beyond those recognized in previous Supreme Court cases and that special factors counseled against extending a judicially implied damages remedy. The inmate appealed from the district court’s judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the inmate’s inadequate medical treatment claims presented a new context distinct from Carlson v. Green, as the facts involved less severe circumstances and implicated broader, systemic prison management issues rather than deliberate malfeasance. The court further found that special factors, including Congress’s silence and provision of alternative remedies, counseled against extending Bivens. Regarding the excessive force claims, the Fourth Circuit found that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Goldey v. Fields expressly foreclosed recognizing a Bivens remedy in this context. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that a Bivens remedy was unavailable for the plaintiff’s claims. View "Spivey v. Breckon" on Justia Law

The defendant was serving a term of supervised release after prior convictions for drug and firearm offenses. While on supervision, he was alleged to have committed new offenses, including strangulation and assault and battery of a family member, based on an incident with his then-girlfriend, Jessica Rodriguez, in May 2021. Ms. Rodriguez did not report the incident to law enforcement until over a year later, in June 2022, saying she had become fearful of the defendant. The evidence at the revocation hearing included her testimony, corroboration by her daughter, text messages in which the defendant appeared to admit and apologize for the conduct, and photographs of Ms. Rodriguez’s injuries. The defendant denied strangling or striking Ms. Rodriguez, offering an alternative explanation for the events, but the district court found his testimony not credible.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had revoked the defendant’s supervised release and imposed an 18-month sentence after similar violations. The new violations resulted in another revocation petition, but the resolution of the matter was delayed for several years due to continuances while related state charges were pending. Ultimately, in January 2025, the district court held hearings, credited the testimony of Ms. Rodriguez and her daughter, and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the mandatory condition not to commit new crimes. The court sentenced him to 24 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of supervised release, holding there was no clear error in finding the violations or in crediting the complainant’s testimony after considering all relevant evidence. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the 24-month sentence and remanded for resentencing, because the district court failed to address the defendant’s non-frivolous argument that he should receive credit for an additional 19 months he spent on supervised release while the revocation petition was pending. View "US v. Mills" on Justia Law

A noncitizen who had unlawfully entered the United States in 1997 was arrested in North Carolina in 2015 and charged with three felony drug offenses: possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, sale of cocaine, and delivery of cocaine. The charges were later dismissed in exchange for his cooperation with law enforcement. Meanwhile, during pending criminal proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings on the ground that he was inadmissible as a noncitizen present without admission or parole. The noncitizen conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause hardship to his family.The Immigration Judge (IJ) conducted hearings at which the noncitizen, represented by counsel, testified under oath to facts constituting the drug offenses. The IJ found that these admissions established the essential elements of the charged offenses and that the noncitizen had failed to demonstrate good moral character, a requirement for cancellation of removal. In so ruling, the IJ determined that the procedural safeguards from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision Matter of K- were satisfied, as the noncitizen had testified voluntarily, under oath, and with counsel present. The IJ denied cancellation of removal and ordered removal to Mexico.The noncitizen appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ misapplied Matter of K- and that his admissions did not establish all elements of the offenses, specifically knowledge of the substance as cocaine. The BIA dismissed the appeal, finding that the admissions were valid and that the elements of the North Carolina drug law were met. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions, holding that Matter of K- did not require reversal under these circumstances and that the noncitizen’s admissions precluded a finding of good moral character. The petition for review was denied. View "Diaz v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Martin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by a United States Forest Service law enforcement officer in the Monongahela National Forest after the vehicle was found illegally parked on a single-lane bridge. The officer, Joshua Radford, initially cited the parking violation as the reason for the stop. However, as soon as the stop began, Radford immediately shifted focus, asking about firearms in the vehicle and then further questioning both the driver and Martin regarding other possible contraband. Firearms were discovered, and Martin was eventually arrested after a check revealed prior felony convictions. Notably, the officer did not issue a citation for the parking offense, and the initial minutes of the stop were not captured on bodycam video.After more than two years, Martin was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence and his statements, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the officer had abandoned the original purpose of the stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the officer’s actions remained within the permissible scope of the stop and did not unlawfully extend it. Martin then entered a guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officer’s immediate pivot from addressing the parking violation to investigating potential criminal activity was not reasonably related in scope to the original justification for the stop. The court distinguished this situation from prior precedent by noting the absence of circumstances suggesting officer safety concerns. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and vacated Martin’s guilty plea. View "US v. Martin" on Justia Law

Charles Byers was shot and killed by Corporal Gordon Painter, a Chesterfield County police officer, after an emergency call reported that Byers had tried to break into two homes and vandalized one. Byers, who suffered from schizoaffective disorder, was seen wandering barefoot in a neighborhood holding a hatchet. When police arrived, Byers refused multiple commands to drop the hatchet, but kept the weapon lowered at his side and did not make threatening movements. After a taser was deployed without effect, Officer Painter fired three shots at Byers, who was about 25 feet away with his head turned away. Byers then turned to flee, and Officer Painter fired additional shots, striking Byers in the back and causing his death.Byers' parents, as co-administrators of his estate, sued Officer Painter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and for negligence under Virginia law, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court denied Officer Painter’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds, finding that Byers did not pose an immediate threat at the time he was shot, and granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. Officer Painter appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo, applying recent Supreme Court guidance that requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the moments before deadly force is used. The Fourth Circuit held that, even considering the totality, Officer Painter’s use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the violation was clearly established at the time. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Officer Painter’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. View "Byers v. Painter" on Justia Law

The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure involving multiple surgical staplers, one of which was used to create an anastomosis that subsequently leaked. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit against several manufacturers of surgical staplers. Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina issued multiple scheduling orders, ultimately extending the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. The plaintiff failed to disclose any experts by this deadline. Twenty days later, the plaintiff moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline, citing delays in obtaining discovery and the model number of the stapler at issue.The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order, finding that he had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and entered summary judgment for the defendants due to the absence of expert testimony needed to support the plaintiff’s claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted diligently, as required by Rule 16(b)(4), and had not filed a motion to compel or otherwise timely challenged the adequacy of discovery responses. The district court also relied on the plaintiff’s own representations regarding when he learned the model number of the stapler.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to amend for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of diligence. Because the plaintiff failed to offer expert evidence, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. View "Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC" on Justia Law