Amanda Mingo v. City of Durham, No. 21-1979 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1979 AMANDA MINGO, as guardian ad litem for J.H., a minor; W. DANIEL GRIST, as guardian ad litem for J.H., a minor; and YASMEEN MURRAY-HYMAN, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. CITY OF DURHAM, Defendant – Appellant, and NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, d/b/a AMTRAK; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ANDRE CHAMBERS; and NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00226-CCE-JLW) Argued: December 7, 2022 Decided: December 14, 2022 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished order. Judge King directed entry of the order, with the concurrences of Judge Richardson and Senior Judge Keenan. ARGUED: Brian Lee Church, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William D. Acton, Jr., Fred William Devore, III, DEVORE, ACTON & STAFFORD, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Matthew W. Sawchak, Caroline H. Reinwald, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Natalia K. Isenberg, Jacob H. Wellman, TEAGUE, CAMPBELL, DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 2 ORDER Having carefully assessed the record on appeal, including the briefs and the oral argument of counsel, we are satisfied to affirm the challenged ruling of the district court, entered on July 2, 2021, denying the claim of North Carolina governmental immunity interposed in these proceedings by the City of Durham. See Mingo v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00226 (M.D.N.C. July 2, 2021), ECF No. 56. Entered at the direction of Judge King, with the concurrences of Judge Richardson and Judge Keenan. FOR THE COURT /s/Patricia S. Connor Clerk 3

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.