Court Opinion

ID: 9960728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:54.327823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:48.382864
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1641       Doc: 43        Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1641

        LIVING LANDS, LLC, a West Virginia Limited Liability Company; D. C.
        CHAPMAN VENTURES, INC., a West Virginia Business Corporation,

                             Plaintiffs – Appellants,

                      v.

        HAROLD WARD, in his official capacity as the Cabinet Secretary of the West
        Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, an instrumentality of the State of
        West Virginia,

                             Defendant – Appellee,

                      and

        JACK CLINE, an Individual West Virginia Resident; ROBERT LEE CLINE, an
        Individual West Virginia Resident; BRADY CLINE COAL CO., a dissolved West
        Virginia Business Corporation, solely to the extent of its undistributed assets,
        specifically including the remaining limits of its available liability coverage under
        liability insurance policies; B. & S. CONTRACTING, INC., a dissolved West
        Virginia Business Corporation, solely to the extent of its undistributed assets,
        specifically including the remaining limits of its available liability coverage under
        liability insurance policies; SPRUCE RUN COAL COMPANY, a dissolved West
        Virginia Business Corporation, solely to the extent of its undistributed assets,
        specifically including the remaining limits of its available liability coverage under
        liability insurance policies covering it and its officers and directors,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00275)
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1641      Doc: 43         Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Argued: March 21, 2024                                            Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before HARRIS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Michael O. Callaghan, NEELY & CALLAGHAN, Charleston, West Virginia;
        Michael Craig Donovan, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. DONOVAN, Mountain View,
        California, for Appellants. Isaac R. Forman, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE
        PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael B. Hissam, J. Zak
        Ritchie, HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1641         Doc: 43      Filed: 04/15/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Two real estate investment firms brought this lawsuit over the disposal of solid

        waste at a former coal mining site in West Virginia. Among the defendants was Harold

        Ward, sued in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of

        Environmental Protection. According to the plaintiffs, the Department’s reclamation

        activities at the site were leading to chemical contamination in violation of the Resource

        Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and implementing state statutes.

               The district court granted summary judgment to Ward and directed entry of a final

        judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court relied on

        three alternative and independent grounds for its award of summary judgment. According

        to the district court, two different exclusions from statutory definitions of “solid waste”

        exempted the site from RCRA’s purview. And even if RCRA applied, the district court

        determined, the plaintiffs had produced no evidence that there had been a violation of any

        statutory standard.

               On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge some, but not all, of the district court’s grounds

        for summary judgment, raising substantially the same arguments presented to the district

        court. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3