Antonya Herring v. Vicki Montgomery, No. 16-1916 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1916 ANTONYA HERRING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VICKI MONTGOMERY, Individually and in her official capacity as CEO/Director, Central State Hospital, Defendant - Appellee, and CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL; BERNADETTE SPRUILL, Individually and in her official capacity as Head Supervisor, Forensic Unit, Central State Hospital; S. YARATHRA, M.D., Individually and in his official capacity as Chief Psychiatrist, Forensic Unit, Central State Hospital, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cv-00738-JAG) Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 3, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON AND GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General, G. William Norris, Jr., Gregory C. Fleming, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Antonya O. Herring appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Vicki Montgomery on her employment discrimination claim raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Finding no error, we affirm. We “review[] de novo [a] district court’s order granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). jury could return a and the movant is Id. at 568 (quoting “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable verdict for the (internal quotation marks omitted). nonmoving party.” Id. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to (internal quotation party must . rely . . on the marks more nonmoving omitted). than party.” Id. However, conclusory at “the 565 n.1 nonmoving allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). Dash v. Mayweather, When a “district court’s grant of summary judgment disposed of cross-motions for summary judgment, we consider each motion separately on its own merits 3 to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.” Defenders of Wildlife v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 762 F.3d 374, 392 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Montgomery employment did actions not at take issue the in allegedly this case. discriminatory Instead, actions were taken by Montgomery’s subordinates. those Thus, Herring was required to demonstrate that (1) Montgomery had knowledge that her subordinates engaged in “conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable Montgomery’s risk response of to constitutional the knowledge injury,” was (2) sufficiently inadequate to amount to deliberate indifference, and (3) there was a causal link between constitutional injury. the supervisor’s inaction and the Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Herring failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact to hold Montgomery liable for her subordinates’ actions. While Herring regarding employment approved, and that does decisions Montgomery proffer that did some inconsistencies Montgomery not follow personally the written personnel policies at all times, these facts alone cannot show that Montgomery subordinates. condoned Montgomery any discriminatory not did intent personnel sign the documenting Herring’s assignment to Ward 8. 4 of her form In light of the large nursing staff employed by the hospital, it was perfectly reasonable for Montgomery to delegate to the Director of Nursing the task of assigning work to nurses. correctly held that Herring Thus, the district court failed to proffer evidence establishing a basis to hold Montgomery personally liable under § 1983. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral affirm the argument adequately district because presented in court’s the the facts order. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
