Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01736/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01736-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1736

DEBRA R. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAM’S EAST, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lynn Tate, TATE LAW PC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. 

W. Bradford Stallard, P. Danielle Stone, PENN, STUART & 

ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Debra R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Sam’s East, Inc., in her personal 

injury action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the 

Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district 

court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 568 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether 

a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and 

all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most 

favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving 

party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere 

speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the 

mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 

731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the 

materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Smith v. Sam’s East, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS

Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

(W.D. Va. June 7, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-1736 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 3 of 3