Court Opinion

ID: 9931430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 22:18:40.355997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:08.995379
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
JULIAN LEE GREEN                                                          February 8, 2024
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner                                                 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 23-ICA-121           (Cir. Ct. Ohio Cnty. No. 35-2022-C-194)

CORPORAL ERIC MCFARLAND,
Defendant Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Julian Lee Green appeals the March 4, 2023, and March 13, 2023, orders
of the Circuit Court of Ohio County. Respondent Corporal Eric McFarland timely filed his
response.1 Mr. Green did not file a reply. The issues on appeal are whether the circuit court
erred in granting summary judgment to Corporal McFarland and in refusing Mr. Green’s
“Motion for In-Person Hearing.”

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

       This case arises from a traffic stop of Mr. Green initiated by West Virginia State
Police Trooper Eric McFarland (“Trooper McFarland”) on August 14, 2022. Mr. Green’s
license was suspended in 2015, after he was convicted of DUI. In the summer of 2022, Mr.
Green was charged on two separate occasions of driving without a license. Trooper
McFarland recognized Mr. Green because he was present for the prior proceedings against
him in the Circuit Court of Ohio County related to the charges for driving with a suspended
license.

       On August 14, 2022, Trooper McFarland observed Mr. Green driving a Dodge Ram
truck on a public road in Wheeling, West Virginia. Trooper McFarland believed that Mr.
Green was driving illegally and initiated a traffic stop. Mr. Green could not produce his
driver’s license during the stop, but Trooper McFarland determined that his license had
been reinstated and let Mr. Green go.

       1
        Mr. Green is self-represented. Trooper McFarland is represented by Justin M.
Wilson, Esq., and Michael D. Mullins, Esq.

                                             1
       In October 2022, Mr. Green, pro se, filed a complaint against Trooper McFarland
in the Magistrate Court of Ohio County, in which he alleged violations of his Fourth
Amendment rights, mental and emotional distress, harassment, and racial profiling based
on the traffic stop. Trooper McFarland removed the case to the Circuit Court of Ohio
County.

         On February 16, 2023, Trooper McFarland filed a motion for summary judgment.
On the same date, the circuit court entered an order acknowledging the filing of Trooper
McFarland’s motion for summary judgment and ordering that Mr. Green file a response to
the motion by March 3, 2023.2 Mr. Green did not file a response, and the circuit court
granted Trooper McFarland’s motion on March 4, 2023. On March 9, 2023, Mr. Green
filed a motion for an in-person hearing, in which he asked that he be given a chance to
present factual evidence to support his claims. This motion was denied on March 13, 2023.
It is from these orders that Mr. Green now appeals.

       It is well established in West Virginia that “[a] circuit court’s entry of summary
judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 190, 451
S.E.2d 755, 756 (1994). In conducting our de novo review, we apply the same standard for
granting summary judgment that is applied by the circuit court. Under that standard,

       [s]ummary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could
       not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where
       the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential
       element of the case that it has the burden to prove.

        Id. at 190, 451 S.E.2d at 756, syl. pt. 4. Further, we recognize that “the party
opposing summary judgment must satisfy the burden of proof by offering more than a mere
‘scintilla of evidence’ and must produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in
a nonmoving party’s favor.” Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 60, 459
S.E.2d 329, 337 (1995) (citation omitted).

        In his brief to this Court, Mr. Green asserts two assignments of error. First, he argues
that the circuit court erred in failing to hear his evidence. Second, he avers that he did not
receive any motions or orders from the circuit court. Additionally, Mr. Green argues that
the traffic stop was a violation of his constitutional rights, and that Trooper McFarland
harassed and racially profiled him in conducting the traffic stop.

       With respect to Mr. Green’s first assignment of error, the record demonstrates that
the circuit court alerted him to the fact that he must file a response to the motion for
summary judgment by March 3, 2023, and that failure to do so could result in the circuit

       2
          A footnote contained in the order stated that “the failure to file a response could
result in the Court granting the Motion.”

                                               2
court granting summary judgment. However, Mr. Green did not file a response by this date,
and did not produce any evidence to support his claims of mental and emotional distress,
harassment, and racial profiling against Trooper McFarland. Thus, we find no merit to this
assignment of error.

        Regarding Mr. Green’s second assignment of error, the record demonstrates that the
circuit court’s February 16, 2023, order which stated the timeframe to respond to the
motion for summary judgment was mailed to both Mr. Green and counsel for Trooper
McFarland. It is a well-established principle of law that “a letter properly addressed,
stamped, and mailed is presumed to have been duly delivered to the addressee.” Dunn v.
Watson, 211 W. Va. 418, 421, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2002) (internal citations omitted).
Although Mr. Green claims that he did not receive a copy of the February 16, 2023, order,
counsel for Trooper McFarland did receive the order. Further, the record demonstrates that
Mr. Green received the circuit court’s March 4, 2023, order granting summary judgment
to Trooper McFarland, and filed his “Motion for In-Person Hearing” in response. It is
unlikely that he received a copy of the March 4, 2023, order but did not receive the
February 16, 2023, order. Mr. Green’s arguments do not demonstrate any error in the
circuit court’s decision to grant Trooper McFarland’s motion for summary judgment. We
note here that in different circumstances the circuit court’s order granting summary
judgment may have been insufficient, as it did not contain the required findings of fact or
conclusions of law. However, it is acceptable in this case, as Mr. Green did not file a
response to the motion for summary judgment.

        Although not presented as an assignment of error, Mr. Green also argues that his
Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the traffic stop. Our Supreme Court of Appeals
has stated that “[p]olice officers may stop a vehicle to investigate if they have an articulable
reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is subject to seizure or a person in the vehicle has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime[.]” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Stuart, 192
W. Va. 428, 435, 452 S.E.2d 886, 893 (1994). Based upon the record, Trooper McFarland
had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Green was driving without a license when he initiated
the traffic stop, as he was present during previous proceedings brought against Mr. Green
for driving with a suspended license. Further, Mr. Green admitted in a deposition that he
did not know whether Trooper McFarland had a racial motivation for the traffic stop.

       Mr. Green also appeals the circuit court’s March 13, 2023, order denying his
“Motion for In-Person Hearing.” However, such a motion is not contemplated by our Rules
of Civil Procedure. The motion seems to be analogous to a motion to alter or amend
judgment under Rule 59 (e) of our Rules of Civil Procedure, as Mr. Green was seeking to
provide additional evidence to the circuit court in order to achieve a different outcome in
his case. Our Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he standard of review applicable to an
appeal from a motion to alter or amend a judgment, made pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P.
59(e), is the same standard that would apply to the underlying judgment upon which the
motion is based and from which the appeal to this Court is filed.” Syl. Pt. 1, Wickland v.

                                               3
Am. Travellers Life Ins. Co., 204 W. Va. 430, 431, 513 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1998). Mr. Green
did not provide any evidence in support of his claims or file a response to Trooper
McFarland’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, we find that the circuit court did not err
in denying this motion, as Mr. Green failed to make a sufficient showing on the essential
elements of his claims and there was no genuine dispute of material fact in this case.

       Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s March 4, 2022, order granting
summary judgment, as well as the March 13, 2023, order denying Mr. Green’s motion for
an in-person hearing.

      Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                                                Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 8, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear

                                            4