William Conrad v. CSX Transportation, Inc. | Court Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1757

WILLIAM M. CONRAD,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, c/o Corporation Creation Network, Inc.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00051-MJG)

Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: February 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence A. Katz, COFFEY KAYE MYERS & OLLEY, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Amy E. Askew, Catherine Mary Manofsky, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Evan M. Tager, Carl J. Summers, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William M. Conrad appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.

(CSX) in Conrad’s suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability

Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 to 60 (2012). Conrad alleged CSX

was negligent in numerous ways relating to his fall over a

barrier at a railway yard. On appeal, Conrad argues that the

district court erred in determining that he did not present a

prima facie case of negligence. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences

therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Smith v. Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate only

when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Seremeth v. Bd. of

Cty. Comm’rs Frederick Cty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012).

The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether the

evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one

party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc.,, 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). To withstand a

summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must produce

competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a

2 genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1).

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable case

law on this matter. Our careful review persuades us that the

district court’s ruling was correct. See Conrad v. CSX Transp.

No. 1:14-cv-00051-MJG (D. Md. filed June 16 & entered June 17,

2015; and filed June 24 & entered June 25, 2015). 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

Opinions