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

A woman sued a North Carolina town, alleging that a police officer employed by the town had sexually assaulted her while on duty. She claimed that the officer coerced her into sexual acts during visits to her home, sometimes in exchange for leniency regarding traffic violations. The officer had previously passed a background check, though some concerns were raised about his temperament and integrity, and a domestic violence complaint had been filed against him but was dismissed. The police department had no specific written policy prohibiting sexual misconduct, but did have general rules regarding officer conduct. During the officer’s employment, he was disciplined for minor infractions, but no complaints of sexual misconduct were received. The plaintiff reported the alleged assault more than a year after the officer resigned.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment to the town. The court found there was insufficient evidence to show that the town’s police department was deliberately indifferent to the risk of sexual assault by its officers, or that any failure in its policies, training, or supervision caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also granted summary judgment on state law claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, concluding there was no evidence that the town knew or should have known that the officer was unfit for employment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there was no evidence of a pattern of similar constitutional violations or deliberate indifference by policymakers. The court also affirmed the dismissal of state law claims, finding no evidence that the town was negligent in hiring, supervising, or retaining the officer. View "Mullen v. Town of Sunset Beach" on Justia Law

A man born in Cote d’Ivoire to Liberian refugee parents entered the United States as a child but did not acquire lawful permanent resident status. After being convicted of certain crimes in Pennsylvania, he faced removal proceedings to Liberia, a country he had never visited and where he feared persecution due to his bisexual identity and lack of family connections. Throughout his removal proceedings, he was incarcerated and unrepresented, which limited his understanding of the legal process and his ability to submit evidence supporting his claims for relief, including asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.During his hearings, the Immigration Judge (IJ) provided confusing instructions about where to submit evidence, leading the petitioner to send supporting documents to the wrong court. He was not properly informed of his right to present witnesses and was not clearly instructed on the legal standards for his claims. The IJ denied all relief and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) dismissed his appeal, holding that he had either waived certain claims or failed to meet legal requirements. The Board also denied his motions to reopen, finding them untimely and concluding that equitable tolling was unwarranted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJs and the Board failed in their statutory duty to develop the record, especially given the petitioner’s pro se and detained status. The court found that the petitioner was prejudiced by the lack of guidance and opportunity to present evidence and witnesses and that procedural deficiencies amounted to a denial of a fundamentally fair hearing. The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Diahn v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A volunteer affiliated with a nonprofit focused on innovation requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The request sought information related to an adversary proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), particularly concerning the panel of judges assigned, changes to the panel, and drafts of the written decision. The proceeding involved a motion for recusal due to a judge’s stock ownership and subsequent reassignment of panel members. The FOIA request specifically targeted documents reflecting the identities and opinions of involved judges, membership of the Circulation Judge Pool, legal bases for judge participation, and information about stock holdings.The PTO produced about 1,500 pages of documents but withheld drafts of decisions and related communications, citing FOIA Exemption 5, which covers predecisional and deliberative documents. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the PTO, finding that the withheld documents were both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected arguments that the communications constituted unlawful ex parte communications or government misconduct, determining there was no basis under FOIA to compel disclosure. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s broader claims were not appropriately raised in a FOIA action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the PTO properly withheld the drafts and related communications under Exemption 5, finding them categorically predecisional and deliberative. The court further determined that intra-agency circulation of draft opinions among judges did not constitute ex parte communications and that FOIA does not provide a government misconduct exception for Exemption 5. View "Malone v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

A former software developer and naval reservist from Virginia, the defendant became the subject of a federal investigation after participating in the events of January 6, 2021, for which he was later pardoned. In the following months, he purchased several firearms and accessories, including devices labeled as “solvent traps” from an online retailer. These devices, although purportedly for cleaning firearms, were constructed in a manner similar to silencers, with features such as threaded ends and internal baffles. The defendant discussed with an undercover FBI employee how these devices could be converted into silencers, despite not possessing the necessary tools for such modification.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia heard the case after a federal grand jury indicted the defendant for possessing unregistered silencers in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the statutory definition of a silencer was unconstitutionally vague and that his conviction would violate the Second Amendment. The district court denied these motions and, after a mistrial, the second jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court’s jury instructions accurately reflected the statutory definition of a silencer, which does not require operability or exclude dual-use devices. The court found sufficient evidence for the conviction, as the devices’ design and the defendant’s statements supported their classification as silencers. The court also determined the NFA was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. Finally, the court concluded that, even if silencers are protected by the Second Amendment, the NFA’s shall-issue registration regime is presumptively constitutional and the defendant had not shown otherwise. The conviction was affirmed. View "US v. Hatchet Speed" on Justia Law

Three individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (OUD) alleged that while incarcerated in facilities where a private medical contractor provided care, they were denied medically accepted screening and treatment for their condition. They claimed that the medical contractor excluded opioid dependence screening and treatment from its otherwise comprehensive services, forcing affected individuals to undergo withdrawal, even when arriving with a valid prescription for medication-assisted treatment. The plaintiffs asserted that these policies were motivated by cost-saving considerations and persisted even after the contractor was aware of the prevailing medical standards and associated constitutional risks.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed the case, which was filed as a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought to certify two classes: one requesting injunctive relief to require the contractor to provide proper screening and treatment, and another seeking damages for past deprivation of such care. The district court certified both classes after narrowing their definitions to ensure ascertainability and found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the defendant, challenged the certification, particularly arguing against the validity, typicality, and commonality of the classes, as well as the predominance and superiority requirements for the damages class.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether the named plaintiffs had standing to represent the class seeking injunctive relief, given that standing was first raised on appeal and required fact-specific findings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of the damages class, finding no abuse of discretion in its conclusions regarding ascertainability, the Rule 23(a) requirements, predominance, and superiority. View "Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns efforts by the City of Baltimore to redevelop 13.8 acres in the Poppleton neighborhood through an agreement with a private developer. To facilitate the project, the city used eminent domain to acquire hundreds of properties, which were then transferred to the developer at an allegedly favorable price. Over the years, the project was beset by delays and amendments, resulting in only minimal development and leaving much of the area vacant and in disrepair. Plaintiffs, consisting of neighboring property owners and a community organization, claimed the city’s actions reduced their property values and exposed them to environmental nuisances.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. It found they lacked Article III standing for their Fifth Amendment takings claim because their own properties were not subject to eminent domain, and held that their private nuisance claim failed to state a claim under Maryland law. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ injuries, stemming from the taking of their neighbors’ properties, did not give them standing to challenge the use of eminent domain, and that their allegations of nuisance were insufficiently specific or actionable under state law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that both claims must be dismissed but for different reasons. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing for the takings claim because they alleged concrete injury through diminished property values. However, it concluded the takings claim failed on the merits since the plaintiffs did not own any property actually taken. The court also ruled that, because all federal claims were dismissed at an early stage, the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law nuisance claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The declaratory judgment request failed as all substantive claims were dismissed. The Fourth Circuit vacated in part and remanded with instructions. View "Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc. v. La Cite Development, LLC" on Justia Law

This case concerns a dispute between two companies regarding contracts for the purchase of industrial refrigeration equipment. In late 2020, ColonialWebb Contractors Company placed purchase orders with Hill Phoenix, Inc. for projects in Colorado and Michigan. Dissatisfied with the equipment received, ColonialWebb filed two nearly identical breach of contract lawsuits against Hill Phoenix in a Virginia state court. The complaints were filed on the same day and assigned consecutive docket numbers. However, ColonialWebb did not promptly serve either complaint. When Hill Phoenix eventually learned of both cases, it mistakenly believed they were duplicate filings of the same action due to receiving two copies of what appeared to be the same complaint, differing only in docket number.Believing only one action existed, Hill Phoenix filed a single notice of removal to federal court, referencing both cases and requesting consolidation. The clerk’s office for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia opened a single federal case, effectively consolidating the two actions. ColonialWebb responded with a motion to remand, arguing that a forum selection clause required the disputes to be litigated exclusively in Virginia state court. While ColonialWebb mentioned improper consolidation, its remand motion was based solely on the forum selection clause. The district court, acting on its own initiative, remanded the matter to state court, finding that the consolidation of the state cases was improper but not addressing the merits of the forum selection clause argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order. It held that the district court erred by remanding the case sua sponte for a procedural defect that was not raised by timely motion, as required by statute. The Fourth Circuit reversed the remand order and returned the matter to the district court for further proceedings. View "ColonialWebb Contractors Company v. Hill Phoenix, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven Clark Lefemine participated in an anti-abortion protest at a reproductive healthcare facility in Columbia, South Carolina, where he intentionally blocked the entrance by sitting in front of the doorway, preventing patients and staff from entering. After refusing requests to move, the police were called, and Lefemine was arrested. He was initially charged with trespassing under state law, for which he was fined, and subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) under 18 U.S.C. § 248.In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Lefemine was first charged under a provision of the FACE Act carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison. However, the government amended the penalty sheet—an auxiliary document to the indictment—to reflect a lower maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000. The indictment was also amended to conform to this reduced penalty. Lefemine’s counsel acknowledged and consented to these amendments. The district court denied Lefemine’s request for a jury trial, finding that the charged offense was a “petty” offense not subject to the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and proceeded with a bench trial that resulted in Lefemine’s conviction.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Lefemine argued that he was entitled to a jury trial both because of the original indictment and because Congress intended all FACE Act violations to require a jury trial. The Fourth Circuit held that the amendments did not require resubmission to a grand jury and that the maximum penalty Lefemine faced rendered the offense “petty” under Supreme Court precedent. The court affirmed that the first-time, nonviolent exception under the FACE Act does not require a jury trial, joining the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Lefemine" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers pursued the defendant, Austin Lodge, after a traffic stop in Clarksburg, West Virginia. During the pursuit, Lodge attempted to place a camouflage backpack inside a residence where his children’s grandmother lived, but was turned away by the occupant. He then fled to the backyard and discarded the backpack next to a shed. Lodge was apprehended without the backpack. Later, officers searched the area, found the bag, and searched it without a warrant, uncovering controlled substances. Lodge admitted ownership of the backpack but argued that his actions were meant to conceal, not abandon, the bag because it was left on familiar, semi-private property.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia first reviewed Lodge’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Lodge had abandoned the bag, thus forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. The district court adopted these findings and denied the suppression motion, concluding that Lodge’s conduct amounted to abandonment, relying on the Fourth Circuit’s precedent in United States v. Small.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court emphasized that abandonment is a factual finding based on the objective circumstances known to officers at the time. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s finding—that Lodge abandoned the backpack when he discarded it after being denied entry at the residence—was not clearly erroneous. Because Lodge abandoned the backpack, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. The court declined to resolve whether a different result would obtain if the property had not been abandoned but was merely concealed on private property. View "US v. Lodge" on Justia Law

A defendant was charged with distributing fentanyl and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. During jury selection, one of the prospective jurors, a retired police chief with decades of law enforcement experience, disclosed his background in policing and drug task force work, but did not reveal that he had previously been the target of a federal investigation into corruption involving local officials. When asked if he or his family had been involved in any controversy or litigation with a federal agency, the juror answered “no.” The defendant was convicted on all counts.After trial, defense counsel discovered the juror’s undisclosed involvement as a target in a prior federal investigation. The defendant moved for a new trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, arguing that the juror’s dishonesty during voir dire deprived him of an impartial jury. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found that the juror had given dishonest answers to material questions, but concluded that there was no evidence of actual bias or that the juror should have been struck for cause if he had answered truthfully. The court denied the motion for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not commit manifest error in finding no actual bias and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the juror’s prior experience did not require exclusion under any per se rule of implied or inferred bias. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that under the standard of review, the defendant was not deprived of a trial by an impartial jury. View "US v. Williamson" on Justia Law