Court Opinion

ID: 9352364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:41.062071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:42.670053
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1365      Doc: 32            Filed: 01/04/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-1365

        JAMES MATTHEW MORRIS,

                     Plaintiff – Appellant,

        v.

        TAYLOR COMMUNICATIONS SECURE & CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS, INC.;
        VENTURE SOLUTIONS, INC; TAYLOR CORPORATION,

                     Defendants – Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00604-EKD-RSB)

        Submitted: October 28, 2022,                                      Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, Brittany M. Haddox, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW,
        Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig A. Brandt, MOSS & BARNETT, P.A.,
        Minneapolis, Minnesota; Monica Monday, GENTRY LOCKE, Roanoke, Virginia, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1365      Doc: 32         Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:
               James Morris (“Morris”) brings multiple claims against his former employer, Taylor

        Communications Secure & Customer Solutions, Inc. (“Taylor”), stemming from Taylor’s

        refusal to pay Morris a sales commission he was allegedly owed. Morris appeals the district

        court’s orders dismissing his wrongful-discharge claim and granting summary judgment to

        Taylor on the remainder of his state-law claims. We affirm.

               We review a grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

        v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). In doing so, we accept as true the

        facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

        Id. We also review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Greater Baltimore Ctr. for

        Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 879 F.3d 101, 107 (4th

        Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any

        material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

        56(a). “To create a genuine issue for trial, ‘the nonmoving party must rely on more than

        conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or

        the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.’” Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v.

        Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dash v. Mayweather, 731

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

               Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the

        district court’s determinations (1) that Morris did not state a plausible claim for wrongful

        discharge pursuant to Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 331 S.E.2d 797 (Va. 1985), and

        (2) that Morris failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact over whether Taylor,

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1365         Doc: 32     Filed: 01/04/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        either through the written terms of Morris’s employment or through other representations

        to him, was required to pay Morris a commission on sales revenue received after Morris’s

        employment with Taylor ended. Accordingly, we affirm.

              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.

                                                                                   AFFIRMED

                                                   3