Court Opinion

ID: 9369578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:01:39.6687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.030696
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1003      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/07/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1003

        JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        HARDY COUNTY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Elkins. Michael John Aloi, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-00087-MJA)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                       Decided: February 7, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Osborne Crandell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clee Chenoweth, Peter G. Zurbuch,
        BUSCH, ZURBUCH & THOMPSON, PLLC , Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1003      Doc: 13        Filed: 02/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

              John Osborne Crandell, III, appeals several orders entered by the magistrate judge

        in this civil action, including the June 26, 2020, order awarding summary judgment to the

        Hardy County Rural Development Authority (“HCRDA”) on some of Crandell’s claims;

        the June 14, 2021, order denying Crandell’s request for additional discovery after our

        dismissal of Crandell’s first appeal and remand to the magistrate judge for the resolution

        of an unresolved claim; and the November 23, 2021, order awarding summary judgment

        to the HCRDA on Crandell’s claim that was the basis for our remand. 1 Because we discern

        no reversible error in the proceedings below, we affirm the magistrate judge’s summary

        judgment award to the HCRDA.

              Crandell first challenges the magistrate judge’s June 14, 2021, order on remand

        limiting discovery to those issues relevant to the remanded claim. We are satisfied,

        however, that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in so limiting the second

        round of discovery. See Bresler v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178, 189 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (stating standard of review). Contrary to Crandell’s contention, nothing in our prior

        opinion suggests that Crandell was entitled to additional discovery on the claims that the

        magistrate judge had resolved before our remand.

              Crandell next challenges the magistrate judge’s June 26, 2020, order awarding

        summary judgment to the HCRDA on (1) Crandell’s breach of contract claim related to the

              1
                The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28
        U.S.C. § 636(c).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1003      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/07/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        HCRDA’s failure to apply industrial covenants to other lots within the industrial park in

        which he owns land, and (2) his claim under the West Virginia Freedom of Information

        Act, W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 29B-1-1 to 29B-1-7 (West, Westlaw through 2022 Sess.). After

        reviewing the record, we agree with the magistrate judge that there is no genuine dispute

        of material fact as to either claim and that the HCRDA is entitled to judgment as a matter

        of law on both claims. See Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348, 356 (4th Cir. 2019)

        (explaining standard of review).

               As to the breach of contract claim, we are satisfied that Crandell failed to show that

        the HCRDA was required to apply industrial covenants to other lots within the industrial

        park. 2 As for the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act claim, we conclude that

        Crandell had “proper and reasonable opportunities” to “inspect[] and examin[e]” the

        documents that he sought. W. Va. Code Ann. § 29B-1-3(c). And the record does not reveal

        that the HCRDA withheld any documents from Crandell that are still in existence. See id.

        § 29B-1-5(2) (authorizing court to “order the production of any records improperly

        withheld from the person seeking disclosure”).

               2
                 Crandell pursued two theories to support his claim that the HCRDA was required
        to apply industrial covenants to other lots within the industrial park where he owns land.
        First, Crandell claimed that the HCRDA had used funding from a particular federal grant
        to improve the industrial park and that the grant conditions required the application of
        industrial covenants. Second, Crandell asserted that the industrial covenants that his deed
        incorporates required the deeds for other lots within the industrial park to incorporate the
        same covenants because the title of the incorporated industrial covenants mentions the
        acreage of the industrial park. Having thoroughly examined the record, neither theory
        persuades us.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1003       Doc: 13         Filed: 02/07/2023       Pg: 4 of 4

               Finally, Crandell challenges for the first time in his reply brief the magistrate judge’s

        November 23, 2021, order awarding summary judgment to the HCRDA on his breach of

        contract claim related to the HCRDA’s attempted repurchase of his property. We generally

        deem waived any argument that is raised for the first time in a reply brief, and we see no

        reason to deviate from that practice here. K.I. v. Durham Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 54 F.4th

        779, 793 (4th Cir. 2022).

               Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s award of summary judgment to the

        HCRDA on Crandell’s claims. 3 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
                Crandell also argues—for the first time on appeal—that the magistrate judge who
        conducted the mediation in these proceedings improperly pressured him to accept a
        settlement offer. Absent exceptional circumstances, which are not present here, we do not
        consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154, 167
        (4th Cir. 2022). In any event, Crandell did not accept any settlement offer, and the
        magistrate judge’s purportedly improper conduct thus did not prejudice Crandell.

                                                       4