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

The plaintiff, a former Federal Air Marshal, worked for over seven years within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). She began her employment after disclosing several vision-related medical conditions, and over time developed additional health problems, including cardiac and nerve issues. As her conditions worsened, TSA placed her on temporary “light duty” and reassigned her to a ground-based Regional Coordinator role with limited flight requirements. Eventually, TSA determined she could not meet the essential medical standards of her position and advised her to seek reassignment. The plaintiff requested reassignment due to her inability to perform the essential duties of her current role and was ultimately transferred to a position at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), a separate division within the Department of Homeland Security.Following her reassignment, the plaintiff experienced difficulties in her new role and unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of her reassignment. She subsequently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that TSA failed to accommodate her disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her claim, finding that she had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” capable of performing the essential functions of her desired position. The court emphasized her own admission that she could not perform those duties and concluded that TSA had provided reasonable accommodations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” for her desired position because she conceded her inability to perform its essential functions, even with accommodations. The court further held that TSA met its obligation by providing reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, and was not required to offer a permanent “light duty” position. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Redding v. Noem" on Justia Law

A physician was charged with unlawfully distributing oxycodone, a controlled substance, after prescribing it to a patient he knew was addicted to opioids, and who subsequently died of a drug overdose. The government alleged that the prescriptions were not issued for legitimate medical purposes and were outside the usual course of professional practice. The physician pled guilty to all charges in 2019. At his plea hearing, the district court explained that the government would have to prove the prescriptions were unauthorized but, following then-binding Fourth Circuit precedent, did not tell him the government also had to prove he knew his conduct was unauthorized.Nearly three years later, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States, holding that, under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the government must prove that a physician “knowingly or intentionally” acted in an unauthorized manner when prescribing controlled substances. The physician filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions, arguing his guilty plea was invalid because he had not been informed of the scienter requirement articulated in Ruan. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied the motion, finding the claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised earlier and that Ruan was not so novel as to excuse the default, since similar arguments were available and made by others at the time of the plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the legal basis for the physician’s Ruan-style mens rea claim was reasonably available at the time of his guilty plea, given existing Supreme Court precedent such as Rehaif v. United States. Therefore, the claim was not sufficiently novel to provide cause to overcome procedural default, and collateral relief was precluded. View "United States v. Dimkpa" on Justia Law

Steven Jamerson was on supervised release in Western North Carolina after serving a sentence for a federal conviction. He violated the terms of his supervised release, prompting the initiation of revocation proceedings. In November 2023, a magistrate judge released him pending the outcome of these proceedings, under the condition that he remain in the custody of his mother, Connie Jamerson, who agreed to act as his third-party custodian and ensure his compliance with all release conditions, including self-surrender if sentenced to imprisonment.At the February 2024 revocation hearing, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina revoked Steven Jamerson’s supervised release and imposed a four-month prison sentence. Rather than remanding him immediately, the court allowed him to self-surrender at a later date, maintaining the same release conditions, including his mother’s custodial responsibility. Both Steven Jamerson and Connie Jamerson received notice of the surrender date. When Steven failed to report as directed in March 2024, Connie Jamerson took no action to ensure his compliance, later stating that her son was responsible for himself. Steven was apprehended nearly a month later.The government moved for an order to show cause why Connie Jamerson should not be held in indirect criminal contempt. Following a bench trial, the District Court found that the November 2023 Release Order—and the custodial relationship it established—remained in effect through the self-surrender date. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Connie Jamerson willfully violated this order by failing to ensure her son’s surrender and sentenced her to three days’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that a valid and sufficiently clear court order existed and that Connie Jamerson willfully violated it. View "United States v. Jamerson" on Justia Law

A student with autism, Y.A., reported to his family that he had been sexually assaulted by fellow students at his middle school. The family’s report to the school prompted an investigation led by Detective Jonathan Graham. Another student, A.D., claimed to have witnessed the assault and identified three perpetrators, including a boy with the same first name as L.M. Although A.D. could not pick L.M. out of a photo lineup, the school later identified L.M. as the individual A.D. had previously accused of bullying. Based on the forensic interviews and supporting evidence, Graham submitted his findings to the Loudoun County Juvenile Intake Office, which determined that probable cause existed for a juvenile petition and issued a detention order for L.M. The charges against L.M. were later dropped when inconsistencies in A.D.’s statements came to light.L.M., joined by other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Graham and others, alleging violations of Virginia law and the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that L.M. had not plausibly alleged that his seizure was unsupported by probable cause or that Graham was the cause of his detention, given the independent determination by the Juvenile Intake Officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the facts alleged did not support a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under federal or state law because probable cause existed and there were no allegations that Graham withheld material information or misled the Juvenile Intake Officer. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "L.M. v. Graham" on Justia Law

The case concerns two individuals who previously worked for a consulting firm that provided proprietary software to several state agencies. After leaving the company, they joined a competitor and helped secure a contract to develop similar software for other states. In 2016, a whistleblower alleged that the defendants' new employer was using materials misappropriated from their former company. This triggered a multi-agency federal investigation that lasted approximately six years. By the time charges were brought, two potentially significant witnesses had died, and several state agencies had destroyed documents that might have been relevant to the defense.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, after the defendants moved to dismiss, found that the loss of the witnesses' testimony and the destruction of documents resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendants. The district court concluded that the government's lengthy investigation did not sufficiently justify the preindictment delay, given the prejudice to the defense, and dismissed ten out of fourteen counts in the superseding indictment on due process grounds. The government appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, even assuming the defendants suffered actual and substantial prejudice, the government's preindictment delay was the result of a good faith, ongoing investigation and not motivated by bad faith or an attempt to gain a tactical advantage. The Fourth Circuit clarified that investigative delay, without improper motive, does not violate due process, even if it results in prejudice to the defendant. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the counts and remanded the case for further proceedings on all counts. View "US v. Minkkinen" on Justia Law

A tenant and her adult son rented a house in Arlington, Virginia, for a year. Several months into the lease, they noticed water leaking through a skylight and informed the landlord. The landlord and a contractor inspected the skylight and confirmed it was leaking, but no repairs were made. After a period of snow and rain, the tenant slipped on water that had accumulated from the leak, suffering significant injuries. She then sued the landlord, alleging breach of contract for failing to complete repairs as required by the lease and state law, and common-law negligence in failing to take steps to prevent injury from the leak.The landlord removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which treated the landlord’s demurrer as a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the complaint did not allege that the landlord or contractor undertook repairs or performed any negligent acts—only that they inspected and confirmed the leak. The court concluded Virginia law does not impose a tort duty on landlords for failing to repair, but only for negligent acts in the course of repair. The breach of contract claim survived the motion to dismiss, but the parties later stipulated to voluntarily dismiss it to allow an immediate appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit first determined it had appellate jurisdiction, accepting the tenant's binding representation that she was abandoning the contract claim with prejudice. The court then affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim. It held that, under Virginia law, a landlord is not liable in tort for failing to make repairs unless the landlord undertakes repairs and does so negligently. Because the complaint did not allege any negligent repair or positive act, only nonfeasance, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law. View "Metz v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Augustine Perez was on federal supervised release in North Carolina, subject to conditions that allowed warrantless searches of his “person and property” by probation officers. Perez moved from a residence at Teal Drive to Lawndale Drive, reporting the change as required, but retained ownership of Teal Drive and leased it to Deanna Coleman, who moved in with her daughter. About a year later, probation officers received a tip from a confidential informant that Perez was living at Teal Drive and involved in drug trafficking. Without a warrant, officers searched both Lawndale Drive and Teal Drive on the same day. At Teal Drive, Coleman objected to the search, but officers proceeded, finding cash and items they alleged were connected to drug trafficking.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Perez and Coleman moved to suppress the evidence from the Teal Drive search, claiming it was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress and granted summary judgment to the government, ruling that the currency found was subject to forfeiture as drug proceeds, largely relying on the evidence seized during the search.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded. The court held that a supervised release condition permitting warrantless searches of a supervisee’s “property” does not authorize the search of real property owned by the supervisee but leased and occupied by a third party. The court further held that, to lawfully search Coleman’s residence under Perez’s supervision conditions, officers needed probable cause to believe Perez resided there. The government failed to meet this standard, rendering the search of Teal Drive unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit ordered suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the forfeiture complaint. View "US v. Perez" on Justia Law

A married couple who lived in West Virginia refinanced their home loan in 2004. Over the years, they regularly sent their mortgage servicer payments that included both the scheduled monthly amount and additional principal prepayments, combining the two in single checks and clearly indicating when a prepayment was included. The loan servicers, including LoanCare, LLC (which began servicing the loan in 2019), allegedly failed to apply the prepayments before the monthly payments, resulting in the couple being charged excess interest. Despite several requests for correction, LoanCare did not adjust its practices. The couple eventually paid off the loan and sought a refund for the excess interest.The couple filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that LoanCare violated two provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the Act): section 46A-2-127(d) and section 46A-2-128. They also asserted claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and conversion claims, but allowed the statutory claims to proceed. After discovery, LoanCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act required proof of intentional misconduct, and that there was no evidence it acted intentionally.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for LoanCare, holding that the Act’s provisions at issue required proof of intentional violation, which the couple could not show. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in requiring intent, holding that the statutory provisions impose strict liability and do not require proof of intent to violate. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tederick v. Loancare, LLC" on Justia Law

Three men—Clifton Mosley, Davon Carter, and Matthew Hightower—were involved in marijuana trafficking together. Hightower, who worked at a medical supply company, was indicted for healthcare fraud based on information provided by his coworker, Lisa Edmonds. After Hightower’s indictment, he, Carter, and Mosley allegedly conspired to retaliate against Edmonds, who was expected to testify against Hightower. On the morning Edmonds was scheduled for a court appearance, Carter fatally shot Edmonds’ neighbor, Latrina Ashburne, having apparently mistaken her for Edmonds. Surveillance footage, phone records, and witness testimony connected Mosley and Carter to the murder and to each other in the hours before the shooting.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland presided over the criminal proceedings. Carter and Mosley were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of witness-murder and marijuana trafficking. Mosley had moved to sever the murder and marijuana charges and to suppress evidence found on Carter, but the district court denied these motions, finding the offenses were properly joined under the Federal Rules, and that Mosley lacked standing to challenge the search of Carter’s property. A jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and Mosley received life imprisonment for the witness-murder counts and a concurrent sentence for marijuana distribution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed Mosley’s appeal. The court held that joinder of the charges was proper, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance. The appellate court also held that Mosley lacked standing to challenge the suppression of evidence from Carter’s property. Finally, the Fourth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld Mosley’s convictions. View "US v. Mosley" on Justia Law

A woman of Syrian descent, who worked as a computer-assisted design drafter at an architecture and engineering firm, was terminated from her job and subsequently sued her former employer. She alleged discrimination based on race and national origin, hostile work environment, retaliation, breach of contract, and a Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The core of her complaint was that she was denied promotions and demoted due to her race, harassed by another employee due to her Arab background, and retaliated against after reporting discrimination, culminating in her termination.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially dismissed all of her claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most claims but allowed a retaliatory termination claim to proceed. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer on that claim, finding insufficient evidence of pretext for retaliation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Following this, the district court imposed sanctions on the plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, reasoning that counsel should have known after discovery that the claim lacked a basis and unreasonably multiplied proceedings by opposing summary judgment and appealing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the imposition of sanctions. It held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the opposition to summary judgment was so baseless as to warrant sanctions. The appellate court concluded that counsel had at least two non-frivolous arguments for opposing summary judgment, including shifting reasons for termination and deviations from policy, making sanctions inappropriate under § 1927. The Fourth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s judgment imposing sanctions. View "Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC" on Justia Law