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

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that government officials violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering curtilage in search of marijuana. The curtilage at issue here is a walk-out basement patio area attached to plaintiffs' home. The court concluded that the district court failed to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs when it accepted defendants' claim that their searches were reasonable because they entered the curtilage only after viewing one of the plaintiffs from a proper vantage point beyond the home's curtilage. In this case, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics that defendants violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment. On remand, the district court should consider whether Heck v. Humphrey is applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a radio manufacturing and repair business and two of its managers, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance. The ordinance, which governs the placement and display of signs, was enacted by the city to enhance and protect the physical appearance of all areas of the city and to reduce the distractions, obstructions, and hazards to pedestrian and auto traffic. Plaintiffs' challenges to the ordinance relate to a protest of a certain adverse action taken against Central Radio by the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the sign ordinance is a content-neutral restriction on speech that satisfies intermediate scrutiny. The court found no merit in plaintiffs' remaining constitutional challenges. View "Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's daughter developed a condition known as dental fluorisis, plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturers of bottled water, infant formula, and baby food that her daughter consumed. At issue was whether federal law, which provides uniform labeling standards for the products at issue, preempts plaintiff's state-law claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action, holding that federal law preempts plaintiff's bottled water claims and that her complaint as to the infant formula and baby food products fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). View "Nemphos v. Nestle Waters North America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that the totality of the record creates too close a question as to whether her coworkers' behavior created an objectively hostile or abusive work environment to be decided on summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue as to whether the employer's proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff was pretext for retaliation and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. View "Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, physicians and abortion providers, filed suit challenging a North Carolina statute that requires physicians to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.85(b). The court concluded that a heightened intermediate level of scrutiny in this case is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and appropriately recognizes the intersection here of regulation of speech and regulation of the medical profession in the context of an abortion procedure. The Display of Real-Time View Requirement is unconstitutional because it interferes with the physician's right to free speech beyond the extent permitted for reasonable regulation of the medical profession, while simultaneously threatening harm to the patient's psychological health, interfering with the physician's professional judgment, and compromising the doctor-patient relationship. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that section 90-21.85 violates the First Amendment and in enjoining the enforcement of that provision. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Stuart v. Camnitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prison doctors and medical staff, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff did not appeal from the district court order dismissing the staff as a party to this case, depriving the court of jurisdiction to review this order. However, the court has jurisdiction over the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the doctors. The court held that while the claim against Dr. Lightsey was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiff has alleged facts supporting a plausible claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Guleria where plaintiff alleged that Dr. Guleria failed to enter the orders necessary to provide him with the promised care. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against Dr. Guleria and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Lightsey" on Justia Law

The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia met twice per month. At the beginning of each meeting, a member of the Board opened the proceedings with an invocation, usually explicitly Christian in nature, and asked the audience to stand for the prayers. Hudson is a non-Christian resident of Pittsylvania County who has attended nearly every Board meeting and alleges that the Christian prayers made her and other non-Christian citizens of Pittsylvania County feel unwelcome. Hudson filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court entered summary judgment for Hudson and permanently enjoined Pittsylvania “from repeatedly opening its meetings with prayers associated with any one religion,” and struck the case from the active docket while retaining jurisdiction. Hudson sought attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $59,679.92.1. A magistrate judge recommended an award of $53,229.92 and the district court adopted the recommendation. Pittsylvania filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), 175 days after the court entered its order. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the merits appeal as untimely and affirmed the award of fees. View "Hudson v. Pittsylvania Cnty, Va." on Justia Law

AGI filed suit against the City, raising claims arising out of an agreement between the City and Profile Aviation. The district court denied the City's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that, under North Carolina law, governmental immunity from equitable claims is waived when a county or municipality acts in a proprietary, rather than governmental, capacity. Because (1) North Carolina precedent suggests that the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule that immunity from equitable claims may be waived pursuant to the proprietary function theory and (2) the rationale behind the theory, as articulated by both the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of North Carolina, is consistent with the waiver of immunity for equitable claims, the court held that the district court did not err in its application of North Carolina state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "AGI Assoc. v. City of Hickory, NC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, South Carolina public employees, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the South Carolina State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act, 2005 S.C. Acts 1697. The Act amended South Carolina's retirement laws by requiring public employees who retire and then return to work to make, beginning on July 1, 2005, the same contributions to state-created pension plans as pre-retirement employees but without receiving further pension benefits. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that their claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment are exempt from the protection of the Eleventh Amendment. The court agreed with the district court that the pension plans and the Trust are arms of the State and have sovereign immunity; the state officials sued in their official capacities for repayment of pension-plan contributions have sovereign immunity; and the state officials sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief have sovereign immunity because their duties bear no relation to the collection of the public employees' contributions to the pension plans, excluding application of Ex parte Young. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hutto v. SC Retirement System" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a registered nurse formerly employed by a state-operated hospital, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219, against two supervisors, alleging that they improperly refused to authorize overtime pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours. The court concluded that the Commonwealth of Virginia is the real party in interest in this action because the actions of defendants were inextricably tied to their official duties. The court reversed and remanded where the Eleventh Amendment has withdrawn jurisdiction over suits of this nature against the States, effectively giving the Commonwealth immunity. View "Martin v. Wood" on Justia Law