Court Opinion

ID: 1001189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:52:01.754846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:44.957142
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL G. BAILEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NEW REGENCY PRODUCTIONS,
                                                                No. 99-2525
INCORPORATED; F. GARY GRAY;
WARNER BROTHERS; COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-99-345-A)

Submitted: March 23, 2000

Decided: March 31, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Samuel G. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Karla Lynn Palmer, MCDER-
MOTT, WILL & EMERY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Samuel G. Bailey appeals from the district court's entry of sum-
mary judgment in his copyright infringement action. We affirm.

In 1992, Bailey wrote and copyrighted a screenplay entitled The
Walls Come Tumbling Down ("Walls"). He submitted this script to
Defendant F. Gary Gray on December 13, 1996. Bailey alleges that
Gray and the other Defendants used this script to develop The Negoti-
ator (Warner Bros. 1998).

Bailey commenced a lawsuit for copyright infringement, and the
Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Defendants proffered
that the screenplay for The Negotiator was largely completed before
Bailey sent his script to Gray. The Defendants further argued that The
Negotiator bore no meaningful resemblance to Walls. The district
court granted the Defendants' motion for both reasons.

To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, a plain-
tiff must show "possession of a valid copyright, the defendant's
access to the plaintiff's work, and substantial similarity between the
plaintiff's and defendant's works." Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc.,
905 F.2d 731, 732 (4th Cir. 1990). As noted by the district court, Bai-
ley cannot show access. The Defendants furnished the district court
with a draft of The Negotiator dated November 7, 1996. That draft
contains nearly all the elements that Bailey alleges were copied from
Walls. Bailey suggests that the date on this draft was fraudulent, but
he has offered no support for this allegation; the Defendants, mean-
while, introduced two affidavits corroborating the date. Thus, Bailey
has not forecast enough evidence to prove the second element of his
prima facie case.

Bailey's failure to prove access provides a sufficient basis for
affirming the district court's decision. Accordingly, we need not con-

                    2
sider the court's alternative holding that there were no significant sim-
ilarities between Walls and The Negotiator.

Finally, Bailey asserts that the court unfairly limited him to fifteen
minutes of argument at the summary judgment hearing. We perceive
no impairment of Bailey's ability to present his case.

For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3