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

The Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town”) requires housing developers seeking a special use permit to set aside a portion of their developments for low-income residents or pay a fee in lieu of that condition. In 2015, Plaintiff initiated its purchase of property subject to the fee-in-lieu. Plaintiff paid the requisite fee installments, commenced the development project, and sold each parcel. After Plaintiff satisfied its final fee installment in March 2019, it brought this lawsuit under a state cause of action to recover the whole sum it had paid to the Town and alleged federal takings and due process violations. The district court never reached those claims because it determined that Plaintiff waited too long to pursue them. The district court dismissed the case under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Plaintiff promptly appealed, asking the Fourth Circuit to hold that the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s federal claims began instead when it paid the fee installments.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of those claims. Having disposed of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court also affirmed the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. The court explained, Plaintiff first had reason to know of this injury no later than 2015. Thus, its claim that the permit condition violated its rights to just compensation and due process accrued at that point and extinguished three years later. By the time Plaintiff filed suit, the sun had set on its federal claims. View "Epcon Homestead, LLC v. Town of Chapel Hill" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a petition asserting that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) failed to provide her daughter, A.C., with a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled for Plaintiff on two of the seven issues she had raised but against her on all others. Plaintiff sought review contending that the ALJ had improperly delegated the remedy for the two issues and erred in deciding the rest. Plaintiff further argued that the ALJ’s adverse findings were not entitled to deference. The district court granted summary judgment to CMS.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that based on the extensive process Plaintiff received in the handling of her case, as well as the detail provided in the ALJ’s written decision, the court concluded that the ALJ’s findings were regularly made. The court further held that the district court was correct to accord those findings deference and to determine that Plaintiff failed to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence on the five issues she disputes. While the deference in these cases is owed the ALJ, it is not remiss to point out that the district court likewise proceeded with its own thorough review in a lengthy opinion. Plaintiff does not persuasively challenge the court’s decision on appeal. Further, the court wrote, it discerns no abuse of remedial discretion on the part of the district court in allowing the respondent to fashion “benchmark(s) and criteria” in A.C.’s IEP indicating when she may move on from Metro School. View "Hind Bouabid v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education" on Justia Law

Lincare, Inc. terminated Plaintiff, concluding that she had violated Lincare’s “Corporate Health Care Law Compliance Program” and “Code of Conduct.” While Plaintiff does not dispute her conduct, she contends that Lincare discriminated against her on the basis of sex because it gave a fellow male employee, who had engaged in similar conduct, only a “final written warning.” Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The district court found Lincare liable to Plaintiff and awarded her damages. On appeal, Lincare contends that there was no evidence of discrimination on the basis of sex and that, therefore the district court’s finding that it violated the Human Rights Act was clearly erroneous. Plaintiff cross-appealed, contending that the district court erred in determining her compensatory damages award.   The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court explained that while the district court’s findings are entitled to substantial deference, the core evidence showed that Plaintiff was fired by a woman and replaced by a woman and that, during the entire process, there was no indication that gender was even remotely a factor in Lincare’s decision. The only explanation Plaintiff offered to substantiate the claim that Lincare had discriminated against her on the basis of sex was her “belief” that she and her comparator “were doing the same thing” and the fact that “he’s a man; [she’s] a woman.” The court wrote that Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient for a factfinder to conclude that it was the product of discrimination based on sex. View "Chandra Balderson v. Lincare Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an employee of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security (“ICE” or “Agency”), petitions for review of the final judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”), which rejected Petitioner’s claim that the Agency suspended him for two days in retaliation for his disclosures of misconduct.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that after conducting a hearing and considering the evidence, the administrative judge denied the corrective action sought by Petitioner, concluding that Petitioner’s protected disclosures were not contributing factors to the discipline imposed and, alternatively, that the Agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the action even in the absence of the disclosures. The court denied the petition explaining that the administrative judge committed no legal error and his factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. View "Yuriy Mikhaylov v. Dept. of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Defendant was a detective in Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force, a unit charged with investigating firearms-related crimes. After a trial where the government showed Defendant and some of his colleagues stole money, drugs, and other items on the job, a jury convicted him of Hobbs Act robbery and racketeering offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to 18 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. This appeal challenges the district court’s later-imposed restitution order. Defendant claimed the restitution order is unwarranted and unsupported. The people to whom the court ordered Defendant to make restitution both admitted to selling drugs, and one said at least some of the stolen cash came from illegal drug sales. Defendant argued these people were not “victims” under 18 U.S.C. Section 3663A(a)(2) because “[t]he proceeds of illegal activity are not the property of the person who obtained the funds through that activity” and the government failed to prove that either the cash or personal property was “untainted.”   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although one of the people to whom Defendant was ordered to make restitution admitted some of the stolen cash was drug proceeds, the same person insisted the rest was lawfully earned from his job as a painter. Defendant, in contrast, suggests all the stolen cash and property were drug proceeds. The restitution statutes supply no rules for how district courts are to resolve these sorts of questions. The court wrote that, in the end, “no amount of policy talk can overcome plain statutory text.” View "US v. Marcus Taylor" on Justia Law

Following an investigation by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission and the testing of DNA evidence, a state court vacated Plaintiffs-brothers’ convictions, finding significant evidence of innocence. North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory granted each a “Pardon of Innocence.” When they were released, they had served 31 years in prison. Through appointed guardians, the two commenced this action against six law enforcement officers, the town of Red Springs, and Robeson County under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of their due process rights. The jury awarded Plaintiffs a total of $62 million in compensatory damages and $13 million in punitive damages.   On appeal, Defendants challenged (1) the district court’s conduct of the trial on several procedural grounds, arguing that they were denied a fair trial and that the district court, therefore, erred in denying their motion for a new trial; (2) the court’s refusal to reduce the jury’s verdict by the $11.5 million that the Plaintiffs had received from others as redress for their injuries prior to the verdict; (3) the court’s addition of $36 million in prejudgment interest to the jury’s award; and (4) the reasonableness of the court’s award of attorneys fees.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendants’ motion for a new trial; vacated its order denying Defendants’ motion to reduce the jury’s compensatory damages award, and directed that the court reduce the award by $10 million and determine whether the award should be reduced by another $1.5 million; reversed the court’s order awarding prejudgment interest; and affirmed the court’s award of attorneys fees and costs. View "J. Gilliam v. Leroy Allen" on Justia Law

In 2015, a jury convicted Petitioner of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence”—in Petitioner’s case, attempted Hobbs Act robbery— in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Petitioner’s Section 924(c) conviction (and the associated ten-year prison sentence) is no longer valid.   Having previously sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, Petitioner now moves for authorization to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion to vacate his Section 924(c) conviction. The court granted Petitioner’s authorization motion, finding that he meets the standard for filing a second or successive motion set forth in Section 2255(h)(2). The court explained that Petitioner must “make a prima facie showing that” his claim satisfies the Section 2255(h) gatekeeping test. The parties agree that Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his Davis claim satisfies Section 2255(h)(2), which requires his second or successive motion to contain “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Petitioner and the Government contend that Thomas, wherein the Fourth Circuit has held that petitioner’s Davis claim met the Section 2255(h)(2) requirements, is on all fours with the instant case. View "In re: Kenneth Graham" on Justia Law

Prior to Defendant’s criminal trial for transferring obscene material to a minor, the district court relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude evidence that the recipient of the allegedly obscene material was Miller’s fourteen-year-old sister. The Government appealed, asserting that the court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence because it relates to elements of the offense and is necessary for the Government to tell the complete story of how the crime occurred.   The court, in considering the evidence’s high probative value and minimal risk of unfair prejudice, found that the district court plainly abused its discretion in excluding the evidence. The court explained that for the Government to tell a complete story of Defendant’s crime that “satisfies the jurors’ expectations,” the Government must tell the jury how he knew the victim before presenting the allegedly obscene letter that resulted from his contact with her. The court concluded that the probative value of the Government’s evidence is not substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice. Moreover, in view of the foregoing, the court held that the district court’s error in excluding the evidence warrants reversal as a plain abuse of discretion. View "US v. Darrin Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate of former federal inmate brought suit against the United States and several Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) officials after the decedent was allegedly beaten to death by fellow inmates. The Estate (“Appellant”) alleges that BOP officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect the decedent from the attack and failing to intervene to prevent his transfer to a “violent” facility. Appellant also sued the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging that prison officials had been negligent in their failure to intervene and protect the decedent. Appellant argues that its Eighth Amendment claims are cognizable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and its progeny.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the Appellant’s Bivens claims arise in a new context and that several special factors, including separation-of-power implications and an increased burden on the federal prison system, counsel against an extension of Bivens in this new context. The court also concluded that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applies to BOP officials’ decisions to transfer Bulger and place him in general population. View "William Bulger v. Hugh Hurwitz" on Justia Law

Appellants are a Swiss consortium, Interprofession du Gruyère (“IDG”), and a French consortium, Syndicat Interprofessionel du Gruyère (“SIG”) (together, “the Consortiums”), who believe that gruyere should only be used to label cheese that is produced in the Gruyère region of Switzerland and France. Seeking to enforce this limitation in the United States, the Consortiums filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to register the word “GRUYERE” as a certification mark. Appellees, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, Atalanta Corporation, and Intercibus, Inc. (together, “the Opposers”), opposed this certification mark because they believe the term is generic and, therefore, ineligible for such protection. The USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) agreed with the Opposers and held that “GRUYERE” could not be registered as a certification mark because it is generic. The Consortiums filed a complaint challenging the TTAB’s decision in the United States district court. The district court granted summary judgment for the Opposers on the same grounds as articulated in the TTAB’s decision.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed and concluded that that the term “GRUYERE” is generic as a matter of law. The court explained that the Consortiums have not brought evidence bearing on whether, at an earlier point in history, the term “GRUYERE” was in common use in the United States. But even assuming that was the case, this argument still fails. In sum, the Consortiums cannot overcome what the record makes clear: cheese consumers in the United States understand “GRUYERE” to refer to a type of cheese, which renders the term generic. View "Interprofession du Gruyere v. U.S. Dairy Export Council" on Justia Law