UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2393
PHYLLIS E. NORRIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Chester
Cecil Norris,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00029-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Gehlhausen, JOHN GEHLHAUSEN, P.C., Aurora, Colorado;
David M. Kopstein, KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Searbrook,
Maryland, for Appellant. C. Dewayne Lonas, Matthew J. Hundley,
MORAN REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phyllis E. Norris appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Norris’
negligence claims related to the allegedly defective design and
inadequate warnings of the Appellee’s product. Norris also
challenges on appeal the district court’s order denying her
motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order allowing the
Appellee to designate certain documents as confidential under a
previously entered protective order. We review de novo a
district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing facts
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Newport
News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423,
435 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment should be granted “if 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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless
there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a
jury to return a verdict for that party.’” Newport News, 650
F.3d at 435 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 249-50 (1986)).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Norris v. Excel Indus., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00029-MFU-RBU
(W.D. Va. Oct. 19, 2015). We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3