Shealy v. Winston, No. 90-1447

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore CHAPMAN and WIDENER; MULLEN
Citation929 F.2d 1009
Parties55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 929, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,678, 59 USLW 2712, 6 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1245 Norris SHEALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable William L. WINSTON; Honorable Thomas R. Monroe, Honorable Joseph C. Gwaltney, Defendants-Appellees.
Decision Date06 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-1447

Page 1009

929 F.2d 1009
55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 929,
56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,678, 59 USLW 2712,
6 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1245
Norris SHEALY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Honorable William L. WINSTON; Honorable Thomas R. Monroe,
Honorable Joseph C. Gwaltney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-1447.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 6, 1991.
Decided April 11, 1991.
As Amended May 6, 1991.

Page 1010

Thomas Dawson Pearson, Jr., argued, Arlington, Va., for plaintiff-appellant.

Barbara J. Gaden, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., Gail Starling Marshall, Deputy Atty. Gen., and William H. Hauser, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), Office of the Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for defendants-appellees.

Before CHAPMAN and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and MULLEN, United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

MULLEN, District Judge:

Appellant Norris Shealy appeals from the decisions of the district court dismissing his complaint. Shealy asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for appellees against the first count in his complaint, which alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621, et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201, et seq. Shealy also argues that the district court erred in not granting him

Page 1011

leave to file an amended complaint to assert a new count. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decisions of the district court.

I.

Shealy filed this action on October 23, 1989, against the Honorable William L. Winston, the Honorable Thomas R. Monroe, and the Honorable Joseph C. Gwaltney, who are judges in the Arlington County Circuit and District Courts of Virginia. The first count in the complaint alleges that Shealy's age was a motivating factor in the decision to force appellant to retire. Count II seeks damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Count III alleges the breach of appellees' obligations to deal with Shealy in good faith.

On a motion for summary judgment by the appellees, the district court dismissed Shealy's second and third counts. Shealy has not challenged those decisions in this appeal.

After taking the deposition of Shealy, the appellees moved for summary judgment on the remaining count, which alleges age discrimination. Prior to the hearing on that motion, Shealy moved to amend his complaint to add a new count that the appellees violated established public policy of Virginia by forcing him to retire because of his age. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellee judges and denied the appellant's motion to amend the complaint. Shealy then filed a notice of appeal challenging those orders.

II.

Shealy has raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the count of the complaint alleging a forced retirement based on his age and (2) whether the district court erred in denying Shealy's request to amend his complaint.

This court reviews the decision granting summary judgment by the same standard applied by the district court, i.e., whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. In reviewing the evidence as it relates to a motion for summary judgment, this Court must, of course, view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, appellant Shealy. Ballinger v. North Carolina Agr. Extension Services, 815 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 897, 108 S.Ct. 232, 98 L.Ed.2d 191 (1987). The court reviews the refusal of leave to amend the complaint for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606 (4th Cir.1980).

III.

The facts viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant are as follows. Norris Shealy was a magistrate in Arlington County, Virginia, from March 1970 through June 1989. He served as chief magistrate during his four most recent terms in office. Shealy has stated in an affidavit that he was called to a meeting on June 7, 1989, before Judges Winston, Monroe and Gwaltney and that at the meeting Judge Gwaltney told him, "Norris, I hate to do this, but we have had a meeting, and we have concluded that you must retire because you are too old. There is no quid pro quo in this; this is final." 1 Shealy then informed the judges that he had another year remaining on his current appointment as a magistrate, a fact that Shealy states the appellees did not know. Shealy's deposition and affidavits from appellees show that they told Shealy that he could remain as a regular magistrate to complete his term, but would have to surrender his position as chief magistrate and work with a new chief magistrate. There was no conversation at the meeting regarding Shealy's pay, retirement benefits or other working conditions. Shealy has stated that he assumed that the position would be at a reduced pay level and that he might have to work night shifts, but he admitted that no one at the meeting told him this. Before the meeting terminated, the appellees

Page 1012

undisputedly told Shealy that they would check with the legislature to see what new position could be arranged and that they would meet again...

To continue reading

Request your trial
646 practice notes
  • PARKELL v. South Carolina, C.A. No. 4:07-3009-TLW-TER.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 2009
    ...The facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir.1991). However, the non-moving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a mot......
  • Moss v. City of Abbeville, Civil Action No. 8:09-cv-01859-PBH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 15, 2010
    ...trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). When no genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir.1991). The facts and inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving p......
  • Lewis v. Richland Cnty. Recreation Comm'n, Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-2884-MGL-TER
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2018
    ...The facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). However, the non-moving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a mo......
  • OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 1:17CV687
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • September 28, 2020
    ...for summary judgment, this Court must ... view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts here, taken in the light most favorable to OptoLum, are as follows.A. Factual Background 1. Parties Plaintiff O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
646 cases
  • PARKELL v. South Carolina, C.A. No. 4:07-3009-TLW-TER.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 21, 2009
    ...The facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir.1991). However, the non-moving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a mot......
  • Moss v. City of Abbeville, Civil Action No. 8:09-cv-01859-PBH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 15, 2010
    ...trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). When no genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. See Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir.1991). The facts and inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving p......
  • Lewis v. Richland Cnty. Recreation Comm'n, Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-2884-MGL-TER
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2018
    ...The facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). However, the non-moving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations to defeat a mo......
  • OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 1:17CV687
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • September 28, 2020
    ...for summary judgment, this Court must ... view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts here, taken in the light most favorable to OptoLum, are as follows.A. Factual Background 1. Parties Plaintiff O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT