Court Opinion

ID: 9412371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:01:00.197502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:08.551109
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1415     Doc: 34        Filed: 07/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-1415

        JANIELE VON EVELYN HAMDEN,

                           Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        ELLEN DENNY, in her professional capacity as an employee of Radford City
        Public Schools and in her individual capacity; ROBERT G. GRAHAM, in his
        professional capacity as an employee of Radford City Public Schools and in his
        individual capacity; MICHAEL BROWN, in his professional capacity as an
        employee of Radford City Public Schools and in his individual capacity; ERIC
        BUCEY, in his individual capacity,

                           Defendants – Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Court Judge. (7:20−cv−00236−EKD−RSB)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                       Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Monica L. Mroz, Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW,
        Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Nathan H. Schnetzler, FRITH ANDERSON + PEAKE,
        P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee Eric Bucey. Christopher S. Dadak, GUYNN,
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1415      Doc: 34         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        WADDELL, CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees Robert
        Graham, Ellen Denny and Michael Brown.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1415      Doc: 34         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Janiele Von Evelyn Hamden appeals a district court order granting summary

        judgment to the defendants on her federal and state malicious prosecution claims and an

        associated conspiracy claim.     The district court concluded that Hamden’s malicious

        prosecution claims failed as a matter of law because there was no record evidence that the

        defendants, through their initial reports of Hamden’s suspected misconduct, had caused her

        prosecution. Instead, independent acts by subsequent decisionmakers – a state police

        officer’s investigation, a prosecutor’s decision to bring charges, and a grand jury’s return

        of indictments – intervened and broke any causal link between the defendant’s conduct and

        Hamden’s prosecution. Nor, the court held, could Hamden demonstrate that she was seized

        without probable cause, as required to make out a malicious prosecution claim, because the

        grand jury’s decision to indict conclusively established the existence of probable cause.

               We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and “view the

        evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving

        party.” Lee Graham Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Estate of Kirsch, 777 F.3d 678, 681 (4th Cir.

        2015) (cleaned up). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘the movant shows that

        there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment

        as a matter of law.’” Chapman v. Oakland Living Ctr., Inc., 48 F.4th 222, 228 (4th Cir.

        2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

               We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and agree with the district court.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to

        defendants Ellen Denny, Robert Graham, Michael Brown, and Eric Bucey. We dispense

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1415      Doc: 34        Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        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

                                                    4