Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01330/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joyce F. Bagley
Appellant
KONE, Incorporated

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1330

JOYCE F. BAGLEY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

Defendant – Appellee, 

and 

KONE, INCORPORATED, 

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-

cv-00893-RWT) 

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 13, 2010

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Patrick J. Christmas, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. 

Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Carol B. 

O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General 

Counsel, Michael K. Guss, Assistant General Counsel, WASHINGTON 

Appeal: 09-1330 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1330 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Joyce F. Bagley appeals the district court’s order 

striking the testimony of her expert, granting Appellee 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”)’s 

motion for reconsideration, and granting summary judgment to 

WMATA in Bagley’s negligence action arising from a trip and fall 

incident at the Foggy Bottom Metrorail station in Washington, 

D.C. Bagley argues that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment to WMATA. Finding no error, we affirm. 

We review de novo the district court’s adverse grant 

of summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most 

favorable to Bagley, the non-moving party. Rowzie v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment 

may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). To survive summary 

judgment, Bagley was required to “produce evidence from which a 

reasonable juror may conclude [not only] that a certain hazard 

caused the injury [but also] that [WMATA] had actual or 

constructive notice of that hazard.” Mixon v. Washington Metro. 

Area Transit Auth., 959 A.2d 55, 58 (D.C. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs

and conclude that summary judgment for WMATA was proper in light 

Appeal: 09-1330 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

of the lack of evidence that WMATA had either actual or 

constructive notice of a defective condition in the station 

causing Bagley’s injuries. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 09-1330 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pg: 4 of 4