Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180305_0000152.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:17:23+00:00

Document:
ELIZABETH K. DILLON, ELIZABETH K. DILLON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jason R. Jordan, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims against Defendant Sergeant T. Large for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and retaliation while Jordan was incarcerated at the Red Onion State Prison. (Dkt. No. 1) Sgt. Large filed a motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 17), to which Jordan responded, and this matter is ripe for disposition. Upon review of the record, the court concludes that Sgt. Large's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Sgt. Large argues that Jordan's excessive force claim is meritless because it is directly contradicted by the surveillance video footage and that Sgt. Large is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that a court should 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.” “As to materiality, … [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The dispute over a material fact must be genuine, “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.; see also JKC Holding Co. v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). As such, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence supporting a genuine issue of material fact “is merely colorable or is not significantly probative[.]” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
The moving party bears the burden of proving that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, then the nonmoving party must set forth specific, admissible facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the record as a whole and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-324; Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994). However, the nonmoving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Baber v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992). The evidence set forth must meet the “substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at a trial on the merits.” Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1315-16 (4th Cir. 1993).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.