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

Elaine Neidig, individually and on behalf of a class, sued Valley Health System, a health care provider, for unfair and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. Neidig had received three mammograms at Valley Health's Winchester Medical Center between March 2016 and June 2019. In July 2019, federal inspectors found that the center's staff were not correctly positioning or compressing women's breasts during mammograms, leading to serious image quality deficiencies. Valley Health then had to alert all at-risk patients, including Neidig, of the mammography quality problems. Neidig, who did not allege any physical or emotional harm resulting from the low-quality mammograms, sued Valley Health in August 2022. Valley Health moved to dismiss the case on the basis that it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations provided by the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia agreed with Valley Health and dismissed Neidig's claims as untimely. Neidig appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Upon review, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the case presented a novel issue of state law that needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The issue was whether a plaintiff's claims can fall under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act if the plaintiff does not claim any form of physical or emotional injury. The Fourth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for resolution. View "Neidig v. Valley Health System" on Justia Law

In this case, Alyssa Reid, a former faculty member at James Madison University (JMU) in Virginia, was accused of violating JMU’s Title IX policy against non-consensual relationships based on her past relationship with a graduate student. JMU and its officials investigated the accusation and held a hearing, leading to a decision that Reid violated the policy. Reid appealed the decision to JMU’s provost, who denied her appeal. Subsequently, Reid sued JMU and several officials, raising three due process claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Virginia Constitution, as well as a sex discrimination claim under Title IX.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that Reid’s claims accrued when the dean made his decision, and thus they were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Reid appealed this decision, arguing that her claims accrued not when the dean issued his decision, but when the provost denied her appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Reid. The court found that Reid did not have a complete and present cause of action until JMU reached a final decision in her Title IX proceedings. The court determined that JMU did not make clear that the dean’s decision was its official position. Rather, JMU’s official position was made clear to Reid when the provost denied her appeal with a “final,” non-appealable decision. Therefore, Reid’s due process and Title IX claims were not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Reid’s claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Reid v. James Madison University" on Justia Law

In this case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the plaintiff, Frank Morgan, appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Morgan alleged that a police officer, J.D. Tincher, used excessive force during his arrest and subsequent detention, causing him serious injuries. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found in favor of Officer Tincher.However, after presenting his case, Morgan discovered another lawsuit against Officer Tincher, involving similar allegations of excessive force, which Tincher had failed to disclose during discovery. Morgan requested sanctions and moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), alleging misconduct by the opposing party. The district court denied the motion, leading to this appeal.In its decision, the Fourth Circuit held that Officer Tincher's failure to disclose the other excessive-force lawsuit constituted misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3). It also found that Morgan had presented a meritorious claim and that the misconduct prevented him from fully presenting his case. The court further concluded that the district court had erred in its analysis of whether the undisclosed evidence would have changed the trial outcome. Lastly, the court ruled that the interest of justice in this case outweighed the interest in the finality of judgments.Therefore, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, vacated the final judgment in favor of Officer Tincher, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to allow for a reasonable period of additional discovery before conducting a new trial. View "Morgan v. Tincher" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on a motion to intervene in an appeal filed by a coalition of civil rights organizations. The original lawsuit was brought by the Association for Education Fairness against the Montgomery County Board of Education and its superintendent, alleging that a new admissions policy for magnet schools in the county was discriminatory against Asian American students. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the admissions policy was not enacted with discriminatory intent and did not have a disparate impact on Asian American students.After the Association appealed the district court's decision, the civil rights organizations moved to intervene in the appeal. They argued that the Board may not adequately defend the district court's disparate impact holding on appeal. However, the Board assured the court that it intended to defend this holding.The Court of Appeals denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, stating that it trusted the Board's representation that it would defend the disparate impact holding. The court also noted that if the organizations were granted intervention, their rights would be largely the same as those of amici, or friends of the court. They would be able to file a separate brief and attempt to participate in oral argument, both of which they could also do as amici. The court also found that the organizations' argument that they needed to be parties in order to participate in potential future Supreme Court proceedings was speculative and contingent on unknown factors. As a result, the court found no need to grant the motion to intervene. View "Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed holding a consolidated trial on the merits of her claims and a hearing on her motion for preliminary injunction.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that after reviewing the petition and the record of the district court proceedings, that either of these latter two factors support the granting of a writ of mandamus. The court explained that in the petition, Petitioner refered to her right to a “prompt evidentiary hearing” and, alternatively, to her “clear and indisputable right to expedited treatment of her PI motion” She asserted that this right is rooted in a statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1657(a), as well as Rule 40 and Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court wrote that none of the sources entitle Petitioner to a trial prior to the currently scheduled trial date of December 11, 2023. To be sure, Section 1657(a) requires the district court in this case to “expedite the consideration of” Petitioner’s PI motion, and Rule 40 similarly requires the district court to “give priority” to that motion. But the record in this case, despite Petitioner’s protestations to the contrary, establishes that the district court has repeatedly attempted to do so. View "In re: Caryn Strickland" on Justia Law

While representing a client, Jane Roe , Appellant attorney John Doe engaged in settlement negotiations with the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS). The negotiations between Doe and UMMS proceeded poorly. Among other things, Doe also made any settlement between Roe and UMMS contingent on his personal receipt of an additional $25 million that would effectuate his retention by UMMS as a private consultant of sorts. A grand jury indicted Doe, charging him with attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951 and 1952. Shortly thereafter—at the government’s request—the grand jury issued multiple subpoenas duces tecum to the lawyers and firms that assisted in Doe’s representation of Roe—and in the formation of the alleged extortion scheme. Doe and Roe moved to quash the subpoenas. That court then granted in part a subsequent motion filed by the government to compel production. Doe and Roe now appealed asking the court to reverse the district court’s orders first denying their motions to quash and then compelling production.The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as to Doe for lack of appellate jurisdiction and otherwise affirmed. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Doe’s arguments given the Supreme Court’s effective narrowing of the Perlman doctrine. The court otherwise affirmed discerning no reversible error and ordered the parties must proceed to comply with the disputed subpoenas duces tecum in accordance with the district court’s order compelling production and this opinion. View "In re: Grand Jury 2021 Subpoenas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against Judge Goldston and others present at the search. Plaintiff claimed that the warrantless search and seizure of his property violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, that the restrictions on recording the incident violated the First Amendment, and that Judge Goldston’s practice of conducting “home visits” violated the Equal Protection Clause by disadvantaging pro se litigants like himself. He sought compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as attorney’s fees and injunctive and declaratory relief. Judge Goldston moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. The district court denied her motion. At issue on appeal is whether Judge Goldston is entitled to judicial immunity.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that judicial immunity protects only judicial acts. It does not shield the conduct of judges who step outside their judicial role, as Judge Goldston did when searching Plaintiff’s home. The court explained that while Judge Goldston might have had the authority to order a search, the proper authority to conduct the operation was the local sheriff’s department or some other appropriate law enforcement agency. The court explained that just as “judges do not do double duty as jailers,” so too they do not do double duty as sheriffs. View "Matthew Gibson v. Louise Goldston" on Justia Law

John Doe (“Appellant”) filed this civil action alleging claims for defamation, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy against Jane Doe (“Appellee”) after Appellee accused Appellant of sexual assault. When Appellant filed his complaint, he also filed an ex parte motion to proceed using the pseudonym “John Doe” rather than his real name. The district court denied the motion.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in considering the district court’s entire analysis of the James factors, it concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it did not rely on incorrect factual or legal premises, nor did it give any indication that it was acting by general rule. Instead, the district court conducted a thorough, case-specific analysis when it exercised its discretion. The court wrote that the district court considered each of Appellant’s arguments, and it carefully balanced Appellant’s stated interests against the public’s interest in the openness of judicial proceedings as required by Public Citizen. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. View "John Doe v. Jane Doe" on Justia Law

On July 6, 2023, the Fourth Circuit granted Petitioner's petition for review, reversed the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner's application. The Attorney General filed a petition for panel hearing, claiming that the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations require that the Attorney General make a discretionary judgment as to whether asylum should be granted, even where a noncitizen has met the statutory requirements.The Fourth Circuit agreed. The power to grant asylum is vested solely in the hands of the Attorney General and, even if a noncitizen is otherwise eligible, the Attorney General is empowered by statute to deny relief. While discretionary denials of asylum are exceedingly rare Petitioner's claim that there are no grounds to deny asylum as a matter of discretion must first be considered by the Attorney General. View "Shaker Ullah v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a high-level high-school basketball player who wanted to play in the NBA. After graduating high school, Plaintiff committed to the University of Louisville. However, subsequently, Plaintiff's father accepted a bribe in relation to Plaintiff's decision to play for Louisville. As a result, Plaintiff lost his NCAA eligibility. Plaintiff filed RICO claims against the parties who were central to the bribery scheme. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that Plaintiff did not demonstrate an injury to his business or property, as required for a private civil RICO claim.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Congress made the civil RICO cause of action for treble damages available only to plaintiffs “injured in [their] business or property” by a defendant’s RICO violation. Without such an injury, even a plaintiff who can prove he suffered some injury as a result of a RICO violation lacks a cause of action under the statute. The Fourth Circuit rejected Plaintiff's claims that the loss of benefits secured by his scholarship agreement with Louisville; the loss of his NCAA eligibility; and the loss of money spent on attorney’s fees attempting to regain his eligibility constituted a cognizable business or property injury. View "Brian Bowen, II v. Adidas America Inc." on Justia Law