James Clinton Turk

In this case, female employees of Virginia Tech sued the university alleging gender-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, as well as retaliation under the EPA. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims lacked merit or were time-barred. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the plaintiffs performed equal work for less pay than male counterparts, whether any violations were willful (which would extend the statute of limitations for some claims), and whether the university engaged in retaliatory conduct. These factual issues must be resolved by a jury rather than decided as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Bruce v. Ebert, the petitioner filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging his 1994 conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, arguing actual innocence after the Supreme Court's decision in Watson v. United States. The case arose from a videotaped negotiation where the petitioner briefly handled but did not complete a transaction involving an M-16 machine gun in exchange for drugs and money. After the petition was transferred to the Western District of Virginia, the court construed the request as seeking a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and vacated the conviction. The court reasoned that the facts did not establish the active employment of the firearm required by Watson and that the indictment specified only the M-16, not another weapon mentioned in testimony.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Angela VanBuren's claims against her former employer Virginia Highlands Orthopaedic Spine Center and her supervisor Dr. Grubb for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as a Virginia common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the wrongful discharge claim against Dr. Grubb individually while denying dismissal of the claims against the company, and it denied the plaintiff's motion to strike an affirmative defense. The court reasoned that Virginia precedent limits wrongful discharge liability to employers and does not extend it to individual supervisors, consistent with the status of the parties as established in the complaint.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In Couch v. Jabe, a Virginia prison inmate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that VDOC Operating Policy 803.2 violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing Ulysses and Lady Chatterley's Lover from the prison library and barring him from ordering them, because the policy disapproved publications containing explicit or graphic depictions of sexual acts. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on an undisputed factual record. It held that the policy was facially unconstitutional and issued an injunction against its enforcement, while denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff's. The core reasoning was that the regulation was overbroad and not rationally related to legitimate penological interests under applicable First Amendment standards for prison restrictions.

free speechcivil rightscriminal law

In Crews v. Johnson, an inmate at Wallens Ridge State Prison filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to vacate his 2004 Virginia convictions for rape and related offenses, claiming violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The claims centered on the destruction of biological evidence before retesting, the prosecution's alleged failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through DNA analysis, and ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging evidence sufficiency or certain appellate rulings. After reviewing the record and parties' arguments on the respondent's motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion to dismiss the habeas petition. However, recognizing the complexity and importance of the constitutional issues raised, the court also granted a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Charles King's motion to remand a diversity action back to Virginia state court after defendant Flinn & Dreffein removed it to federal court. King filed the complaint in state court in September 2008 but did not serve it until exactly one year later; Flinn removed within thirty days of service, citing diversity jurisdiction. King argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) bars removal of any diversity case more than one year after the action commences, while Flinn contended the one-year limit applies only to cases that were not removable when first filed. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the statutory language and policy considerations limit the one-year bar to cases that become removable later, and granted a certificate for interlocutory appeal because the Fourth Circuit has not resolved the issue.

procedure

This case involved federal criminal charges against Jody Smith and Margaret Smith arising from an alleged illegal moonshine operation, including direct counts for producing untaxed liquor as well as related charges of money laundering, perjury, and (for Jody Smith) fraudulent receipt of social security disability benefits. After a jury convicted the defendants on all tried counts, the court ruled on their post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial. The court granted the motions in part by vacating several money-laundering convictions on the ground that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that the laundered funds were proceeds of the moonshine or disability-fraud activity, while denying acquittal on the remaining counts because substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts when viewed in the light most favorable to the government; the court also denied the new-trial motions, finding the evidence did not weigh heavily against the verdicts.

criminal law

This ERISA case arose after Old Dominion Freight Line denied long-term disability benefits to its former employee Thomas Piepenhagen, who had suffered a heart attack while working as a truck driver. Piepenhagen sued the company’s employee benefit plan, seeking a determination of his rights, past benefits, and attorney’s fees. The court granted summary judgment to the plan and denied Piepenhagen’s motion. It held that the plan administrator’s decision to terminate benefits after the initial “own occupation” period was not arbitrary or capricious, as it properly applied the settlement agreement’s definition of disability that excluded mental or nervous disorders except for any physical manifestations, relied on medical evidence showing Piepenhagen could perform other work, and was not required to conduct a separate vocational analysis absent evidence that he could perform no job at all.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Steven Weinstein sued AT&T Mobility LLC and its employee Kathryn Chiarolonzio after the employee accessed his cellular phone records without authorization, generated a new account, and sent text messages to women he had frequently called, alleging violations of federal telecommunications statutes including 47 U.S.C. § 222(a) for failure to protect proprietary customer information and 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) for improper divulgence and use of communications. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the statutes do not create a private right of action for this conduct, Chiarolonzio acted outside the scope of her employment so AT&T bore no liability, and the alleged actions did not meet the elements of publishing or receiving interstate wire or radio communications under § 605.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a former deputy sheriff charged with multiple federal crimes including accessory after the fact, misprision of felony, obstruction of proceedings, and making false statements, stemming from alleged wrongdoing in the Henry County Sheriff's Office and subsequent investigations. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing defects such as lack of specificity, expiration of the statute of limitations, and insufficient allegations of concealment. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the indictment adequately stated the elements and provided factual details to inform the defendant of the charges, that the charged acts occurred within the five-year limitations period, and that it sufficiently alleged active concealment rather than mere silence.

criminal lawprocedure

The plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits, claiming entitlement based on mental retardation under the relevant listing. The Commissioner moved to remand the case for further administrative review to address whether the plaintiff showed deficits in adaptive functioning before age 22. The court granted the motion to remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), agreeing with the magistrate's recommendation. The core reasoning was that the administrative record was not fully developed on the required element of adaptive functioning deficits manifesting before age 22, and low IQ scores alone do not conclusively establish that element despite presumptions about IQ stability.

federal powerprocedure

In Ragland v. Angelone, an inmate of the Virginia Department of Corrections who practices Rastafarianism challenged the department's grooming policy (DOP 864), which requires male inmates to keep hair short and prohibits beards, asserting that the policy's penalties for noncompliance—including loss of privileges, segregation, and reduced good conduct time—violated his rights under the First Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), RLUIPA, state laws, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that RLUIPA is unconstitutional and that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief. The court granted the motions for summary judgment, concluding that the policy's restrictions on religious exercise further compelling governmental interests in security, safety, sanitation, and inmate identification through the least restrictive means, as supported by evidence of past incidents involving concealed contraband and health risks in long hair.

criminal lawreligious libertycivil rights

This case concerns a Virginia prison inmate's lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) after officials denied his requests for a kosher diet to accommodate his Hebrew Israelite beliefs. The defendants moved to dismiss the RLUIPA claims, arguing that section 3 of the statute exceeded Congress's authority under the Spending Clause and Commerce Clause and violated federalism principles by regulating state prison policies. The court upheld the provision, ruling that Congress validly exercised its spending power by unambiguously conditioning the receipt of federal funds on states' accommodation of prisoners' religious exercise. It found no improper coercion or interference with state sovereignty that would render the conditions unconstitutional, while deferring the Commerce Clause challenge. The decision followed prior rulings rejecting Establishment Clause and Tenth Amendment attacks on the statute.

religious libertyfederal powercivil rightscriminal law

This case is a class action brought by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and several truck owner-operators against North American Van Lines, alleging violations of federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations under 49 C.F.R. § 376 and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The defendant moved to transfer the case from the Western District of Virginia to the Northern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the motion to change venue, finding that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The core reasoning centered on NAVL's headquarters and most relevant documents, witnesses, and business operations being located in Fort Wayne, Indiana, while the chosen Virginia forum had minimal connection to the dispute beyond one plaintiff's residence and the class members were scattered nationwide.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a dispute among members of the Audubon Quartet over the termination of one member, leading to state court lawsuits in Virginia and Pennsylvania that resulted in a judgment of over $600,000 against the remaining members (the Debtors). The Debtors filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions, which were later converted to Chapter 11, and challenged a Pennsylvania court's post-petition final decree affirming the judgment as violating the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court initially declared the decree void but reconsidered its position, prompting an appeal to the district court on issues including the stay's applicability after conversion, eligibility under section 109(e), and whether actions in violation of the stay could be validated retroactively. The district court analyzed the continuation of the stay upon conversion and the potential for annulment under section 362(d) to promote judicial efficiency, without resolving all underlying liability questions.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves an inmate at Wallens Ridge State Prison with a shoulder disability who alleged that prison staff ignored a medical pass requiring front handcuffing, instead cuffing him behind his back during a cell search, causing pain and injury. The plaintiff sued the Virginia Department of Corrections and individual staff under the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of disability protections and the Eighth Amendment. The court addressed the VDOC's motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim, which challenged the statute's constitutionality. It denied the motion, holding that the Act validly applies to state prisons receiving federal funds and that acceptance of such funds waives sovereign immunity under the Spending Clause, as the statutory language clearly conditions funding on this waiver and Supreme Court precedent confirms coverage of prisons.

civil rightsfederal power

In this case, an inmate in the Virginia Department of Corrections sued prison officials under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) after his requests for a kosher diet were denied, claiming the denials violated his religious beliefs as a member of a Hebrew Israelite sect. The court had previously denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim due to factual disputes over the sincerity of the plaintiff's beliefs and had taken the RLUIPA claim under advisement pending briefing on the statute's constitutionality. After hearing arguments, the court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the RLUIPA claim. The court reasoned that RLUIPA, by restoring strict scrutiny for substantial burdens on religious exercise even under neutral laws of general applicability, exceeds the protections required by Supreme Court precedent in Employment Division v. Smith and thereby violates the Establishment Clause by affirmatively advancing religion. The opinion traces the legislative and judicial history from RFRA through City of Boerne v. Flores to support this conclusion.

religious libertycriminal lawfederal power

In Wilson v. Kittoe, the plaintiff, an attorney, brought a § 1983 action claiming he was arrested without probable cause by police officers while attempting to speak with and represent his client at the scene of a nighttime investigation, in alleged violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that no constitutional rights were violated and that qualified immunity shielded the officers from suit. The court examined whether the plaintiff's verbal statements offering legal representation and refusal to disperse constituted obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct under applicable statutes and precedents such as Colten v. Kentucky and Brown v. Gilmore, distinguishing physical obstruction from protected speech and finding the relevant constitutional right clearly established.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Bank United v. Hamlett, a bank appealed a bankruptcy court's refusal to set aside a default judgment that voided its deeds of trust on the debtor's properties after the bank's late-filed claims were disallowed. The district court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by denying relief under Bankruptcy Rule 7055 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The decision rested on findings that the bank's motion was timely, it had a meritorious defense regarding the validity of its liens, and the debtor would not suffer unfair prejudice, consistent with the Fourth Circuit's preference for resolving cases on the merits rather than by default.

procedureproperty

This bankruptcy appeal concerned debtor Hamlett's effort to void Ocwen's liens on five parcels of real property (the Dalewood Properties) based solely on a prior consent order that declared void ab initio his transfer of Centurion stock to Jane Parker. The bankruptcy court dismissed the action, ruling that the consent order affected only the stock conveyance and had no effect on the corporate assets or subsequent deeds of trust granted by Parker. The district court affirmed, reasoning that Ocwen was not a party to the adversary proceeding and received no notice that its liens were at issue, and that principles of equitable estoppel barred Hamlett from profiting from his own fraudulent conduct by challenging the validity of the liens.

propertyprocedure