UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1290

WILLIAM V. WHITING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER S. BUTCH,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-25223)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 30, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Hobbs, LAW OFFICE OF MARK HOBBS, Chapmanville, West 

Virginia; Herman J. Marino, Danielle K. Kegley, HERMAN J. 

MARINO, LTD., P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Melissa 

Foster Bird, Megan Basham Davis, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 

SCARBOROUGH LLP, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William V. Whiting appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to his former attorney, Christopher S. 

Butch, on his legal malpractice claim. On appeal, Whiting 

contends that the district court erred in construing his claim 

as arising under tort, and thus concluding the claim failed 

because he failed to provide expert testimony to support his 

claim. We affirm the district court’s order.

We “review[] de novo [a] 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 
3

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

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

Under West Virginia law, “legal malpractice actions may 

sound either in tort or in contract.” Hall v. Nichols, 400 

S.E.2d 901, 903 (W. Va. 1990). However, regardless of how the 

claim is characterized, the same principles underlie a legal 

malpractice action. See Keister v. Talbott, 391 S.E.2d 895, 898 

n.3 (W. Va. 1990). Thus, Whiting was required to establish that 

Butch neglected a reasonable duty and that Butch’s negligence 

proximately caused his loss. Id. at 898-99. Whiting conceded 

that expert testimony was necessary for him to establish that 

Butch’s representation failed to meet the appropriate standard 

of care and that he did not have such testimony to support his 

claim. See Sheetz, Inc. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, 

PLLC, 547 S.E.2d 256, 272 (W. Va. 2001); see also First Nat’l 

Bank of Bluefield v. Crawford, 386 S.E.2d 310, 314 n.9 (W. Va. 

1989) (“It is the general rule that want of professional skill 

can be proved only by expert witnesses.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED