UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2423
GREGORY RHEUBOTTOM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
ALSTOM TRANSPORTATION, INC.; IFE NORTH AMERICA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00485-PJM)
Submitted: April 12, 2013 Decided: May 20, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas K. Allston, Jr., ALLSTON & ASSOCIATES, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General
Counsel, Carol B. O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Gerard J. Stief,
Senior Associate General Counsel, Nicholas L. Phucas, Assistant
General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In this personal injury case, Gregory Rheubottom
appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s
supplemental motion for summary judgment. On appeal, he argues
that the district court misunderstood the evidence and erred in
granting the motion. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.
We review whether a district court erred in granting
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court. Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th
Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is
no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Id. In determining whether there
is a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. However, a
nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with merely a
scintilla of evidence. American Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d
78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009). “Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and agree with the
district court’s stated reasons for granting Appellee’s
supplemental motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we
3
affirm the district court’s order. See Rheubottom v. Washington
Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:09-cv-00485-PJM (D. Md. Oct.
19, 2012). 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
4