UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6442

DAVID ATKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIEUTENANT GLASER T, Team Commander; R. CLEEK, Officer; SERGEANT 

WILLIAMS; A. TURNER, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NURSE SAMBOY, Head Nurse, RN; JOSEPH P. BARON, Sheriff,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00354-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: August 24, 2020 Decided: September 30, 2020

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

David Atkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, Philip Corliss Krone, COOK 

CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

David Atkins, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of Lieutenant Thomas Glaser, Corporal Robert Cleek, 

and Sergeant Erica Williams (“Defendants”) and denying Atkins’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion to alter or amend the judgment in Atkins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1

 For the reasons 

that follow, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “viewing the facts 

and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Salley 

v. Myers, __ F.3d __, __, No. 19-6374, 2020 WL 4664808, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020). 

A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of “‘show[ing] that there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law.’” Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). If the movant makes this showing, “the nonmoving party 

[must then] go beyond the pleadings” and rely on “affidavits, . . . depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file” to prove that a genuine issue of material fact exists. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 

Variety Stores, 888 F.3d at 659. Thus, to withstand a summary judgment motion, the 

nonmoving party must produce more than “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations” or “a 

1 Although the notice of appeal lists only the March 19, 2020, order denying Atkins’ 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, a timely appeal from the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion brings 

up the underlying order as well where, as in this case, it is clear that this was the appellant’s 

intent. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Brown v. French, 147 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 

1998).
4

mere scintilla of evidence.” Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 

(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a court cannot “credit[] the 

evidence of the party seeking summary judgment and fail[] properly to acknowledge key 

evidence offered by the party opposing that motion,” Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 659 

(2014), unless the record “blatantly contradict[s]” the nonmoving party’s version of events, 

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

In this case, the district court focused entirely on the Defendants’ evidence because 

it concluded that Atkins’ complaint and responsive pleadings were unsworn and 

unauthenticated and therefore could not be considered in assessing the summary judgment 

motion. Atkins’ responses in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion were 

unsworn. However, he declared under penalty of perjury that the information contained in 

his complaint was true and correct, thus making his complaint “the equivalent of an 

opposing affidavit for summary judgment purposes.” World Fuel Servs. Trading, DMCC 

v. Hebei Prince Shipping Co., 783 F.3d 507, 516 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Because the district court based its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants solely on the evidence presented by Defendants, we vacate the district court’s 

order and remand to allow the district court to also consider Atkins’ verified complaint in 

determining whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.2

 We express no view 

2 While the case was still pending in the district court, Atkins appealed from the 

district court’s February 5, 2019, order dismissing all claims against Nurse Samboy and 

Sheriff Joseph P. Barron, and dismissing the claims against Glaser, Cleek, and Williams 

(Continued)
5

on the merits of Atkins’ claims. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

concerning lost property and the denial of pain medication. We dismissed that appeal as 

interlocutory. Atkins v. Glaser, 775 F. App’x 140 (4th Cir. 2019) (No. 19-6402). In this 

appeal, Atkins does not challenge the February 5, 2019, order or the September 27, 2019,

dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Officer A. Turner for failure to effect 

service.