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

Plaintiff filed personal injury and wrongful death claims against the United States and Coast Guard under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA), 46 U.S.C. 30901-30918. Plaintiff and her husband fell overboard their boat and her husband subsequently died of drowning. The court concluded that the Coast Guard neither increased the danger facing plaintiff and her husband nor induced reliance on the part of either plaintiff, her husband, or a third party. Accordingly, plaintiff could not prove that the Coast Guard breached its duty to her or her deceased husband, and the district court properly entered summary judgment on plaintiff's tort claims. The court also found that the rulings on the issues of spoliation and the timeliness of the motion reflected proper exercises of the district court's discretion and the court affirmed as to these issues. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the Coast Guard's response to plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request satisfied its duty under that Act. View "Turner v. United States" on Justia Law

Phillip Morris sought review of the USDA's decision regarding the implementation of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (FETRA), 7 U.S.C. 518 et seq. Phillip Morris challenged the USDA's decision to use 2003 tax rates instead of current tax rates in calculating how these assessments were to be allocated across manufacturers of different tobacco products. The court concluded that USDA's decision was a permissible interpretation of FETRA; there was no clear indication in the text of the statute, or in Congress's prior or subsequent action, that Congress intended for USDA to take a different course; and there was similarly no basis for concluding that USDA filled that gap with an unreasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of USDA's motion for summary judgment. View "Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), alleging that the Army was negligent and therefore liable for an Army Specialist's sexual assault against plaintiff. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish that the sexual assault was foreseeable under North Carolina law, and thus the Army did not breach a duty owed to plaintiff as landlord of Fort Bragg; the Army did not have a special relationship with the assailant for purposes of an FTCA claim; the government did not breach a voluntarily assumed duty to plaintiff; and, because discovery would serve no purpose, it was not error for the district court to reach the merits of plaintiff's claim at this stage of the litigation. The court also concluded that, although the government's ability to control a tortfeasor must be independent of the tortfeasor's status as a government employee, knowledge of the tortfeasor's propensity for violence or criminal history did not, per se nullify an FTCA claim. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal on this alternative basis was erroneous. View "Durden v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the drugs seized during a traffic stop, as well as his sentence. The district court did not clearly err in denying the motion to suppress when the district court concluded that the arresting officer's testimony was credible and that he had probable cause to believe the driver had committed a traffic violation by not having an operational brake light. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court concluded that the seizure of cash from defendant occurring two weeks before his arrest arose from relevant conduct to the offense of conviction and where the district court did not err in failing to impose an individualized sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. McGee" on Justia Law

This action arose out of allegedly defective roofing work performed by defendant. At issue was whether defendant, an insured contractor, was a nominal party in a contribution suit between its insurers. The court affirmed the district court's holding that defendant was a nominal party for purposes of the nominal party exception to the rule of unanimity governing removal where defendant did not possess a sufficient stake in the proceeding at issue to rise above the status of a nominal party. View "Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mutual Ins." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions related to their participation in a conspiracy to traffic in khat, a plant containing the controlled substance cathinone. The court concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on scienter; the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving a willful blindness instruction; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiring to traffic in the controlled substance of cathinone; the court affirmed the district court's two procedural rulings at issue; and because the court concluded that Count 2 adequately informed defendants of the money laundering charges against them and provided sufficient detail to enable them to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecution for the same offense, the court rejected defendants' challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ali" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal based on violent felonies he committed. Defendant relied on Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandated life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. The court found Miller inapplicable in this instance where defendant's sentence punished him for an offense he committed at the age of thirty-three. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Prudential, the plan administrator, and BioMerieux, her employer, after Prudential denied her long-term disability and short-term disability benefits. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Prudential and BioMerieux. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the language at issue in both plans was ambiguous and did not clearly confer discretionary decision-making authority on the plan administrator. Therefore, the administrator's eligibility determinations denying benefits to a covered employee were subject to de novo judicial review, and the district court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion. The court further held that the district court erred in concluding that the employer's group insurance plan required objective proof of disability in order for an employee to qualify for plan benefits. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cosey v. The Prudential Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state law claims, after plaintiff was shot by the officers. Plaintiff, after hearing sounds of unknown persons outside his home, opened the front door carrying a shotgun and was shot by the officers. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. The district court did not err in denying the officers qualified immunity from plaintiff's excessive force claims under section 1983 where a reasonable officer would not have had probable cause to feel threatened by plaintiff's actions and the constitutional right at issue - the right to be free from deadly force when posing no threat - was clearly established at the time the officers shot plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to the section 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of public officers' immunity with respect to plaintiff's state law tort claims. View "Cooper, Sr. v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

DynCorp contracted with the U.S. Department of State to assist in the development of a civilian police force in Iraq and subcontracted with PMC for operations and maintenance support. PMC filed suit against DynCorp alleging that DynCorp breached its contract with PMC by making payments to one account instead of another. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMC's case against DynCorp as a sanction for its discovery malfeasance. The court rejected PMC's arguments on appeal because they did not support reversal of the district court's orders. View "Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC" on Justia Law