Court Opinion

ID: 9418056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 21:00:29.655841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.408744
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6634      Doc: 37        Filed: 08/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-6634

        KELLY JAMES CLARK JR,

                            Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICER GLENN TOMMY PAYNE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KEVIN
        CARL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COLBY MILLER,

                            Defendant – Appellees,

                     and

        TOMMY PAYNE, Louisa Sheriff Department; LOUISA COUNTY SHERIFF
        DEPARTMENT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CARL; MR. MILLER,
        Correctional Officer; CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL; ASHLAND D.
        FORTUNE, Sheriff of Louisa County, Virginia,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Charlottesville. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00017-TTC-JCH)

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                   Decided: August 1, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RUSHING, HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6634      Doc: 37         Filed: 08/01/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        ON BRIEF: Susan J. Clouthier, CLOUTHIER LAW, PLLC, The Woodlands, Texas, for
        Appellant. William W. Tunner, John P. O’Herron, Matthew T. Anderson,
        THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6634       Doc: 37         Filed: 08/01/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Kelly James Clark, Jr. appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment,

        alleging the district court erred in finding for the defendants in a suit brought under

        42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and see no reversible error in the district

        court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Glenn Payne. Accordingly, we affirm

        that portion of the district court’s judgment.

               In contrast, we conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment for

        defendants Kevin Carl and Colby Miller. During his deposition, Clark testified that those

        officers led him to a separate room in the hospital where he was being treated and that Carl

        stepped on one of his tubes, dislodging the tube from his body and creating a need for

        serious medical intervention. Although this testimony differed in substantial respects from

        the allegations in Clark’s complaint, the district court did not refuse to consider it on that

        ground. Instead, the district court’s sole justification for granting summary judgment for

        Carl and Miller was that Clark “ha[d] not provided a single piece of other objective

        evidence corroborating this story” and “other evidence in the record”—specifically,

        Clark’s medical records—“demonstrate[ ] that this event never occurred.” JA 883.

               That was error. True, the only evidence in the record supporting this account is

        Clark’s testimony. But a party’s own deposition is sufficient to create a genuine issue of

        material fact, and there is no requirement that plaintiffs provide “other objective evidence

        corroborating” their own personal accounts. JA 883; see Gray v. Spillman, 925 F.2d 90, 95

        (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding plaintiff ’s “own deposition testimony puts into issue whether

        the police officers in fact beat him”). Nor is this a situation in which Clark’s account is so

                                                         3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6634         Doc: 37        Filed: 08/01/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        “blatantly contradicted” and rendered a “visible fiction” by evidence of “undisputed

        authenticity” like a videotape that “no reasonable jury could believe it.” Harris v. Pittman,

        927 F.3d 266, 275–76 (4th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, this Court has

        emphasized that resort to such an approach “is the exception, not the rule” and that courts

        must be careful not to “abrogate the proper summary judgment analysis, which in qualified

        immunity cases usually means adopting . . . the plaintiff’s version of the facts.” Id. at 276

        (quotation marks omitted). Because assessing the believability of Clark’s testimony

        requires a credibility determination that may not be made as a matter of law, see Gray,

        925 F.2d at 95, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Carl and Miller

        on that basis. *

               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 IN PART & VACATED IN PART

               *
                 Concluding such an amendment would be futile, the district court also denied
        Clark’s motion to amend the complaint to conform to his deposition testimony. JA 883–
        84. Because Clark did not appeal that ruling, it is not directly before us. Instead, our holding
        is confined to the reasons given by the district court for granting the motion for summary
        judgment.

                                                       4