Legal Case

Ted Acord v. Chad Stilley

Court

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided

June 6, 2025

Jurisdiction

F

Practice Areas

Civil Rights Law
Law Enforcement Liability

Case Summary

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1934 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1934 TED ACORD, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Acord, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHAD STILLEY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00284-EKD-CKM) Argued: May 6, 2025 Decided: June 6, 2025 Amended June 6, 2025 Before KING, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Seth Raven Carroll, COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy E. Carroll, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Julian F. Harf, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1934 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: In this appeal from the Western District of Virginia, plaintiff Ted Acord, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Acord, challenges the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Chad Stilley, a police officer with the Town of Narrows, Virginia. See Memorandum Opinion, Acord v. Stilley, No. 7:22-cv-00284 (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2024), ECF No. 62 (the “Summary Judgment Opinion”).* Ted Acord filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Stilley used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in that Stilley caused a fatal collision with Michael Acord, who was fleeing westbound through Stilley’s bailiwick — the Town of Narrows — on his motorcycle at a high rate of speed, by moving the police vehicle in which he sat into the public highway — that is, U.S. Route 460 — and blocking all lanes of escape. Acord also raised a claim of battery under Virginia state law. The court granted summary judgment to Stilley on both claims, concluding that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claim and good-faith immunity under Virginia law on the state law claim. On appeal, Acord argues that Stilley’s conduct violated Michael’s clearly established constitutional rights and that the court therefore erred in awarding summary judgment in Stilley’s favor on both the federal and state law claims. Having carefully assessed the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in determining that Stilley The district court’s Summary Judgment Opinion is published at 749 F. Supp. 3d * 635 (W.D. Va. 2024). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1934 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/06/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 was entitled to qualified immunity as to Acord’s § 1983 claim asserting a Fourth Amendment violation. See Somers v. Devine, 132 F.4th 689, 695 (4th Cir. 2025). We are also satisfied that the court correctly determined that Stilley was entitled to good-faith immunity as to Acord’s state law battery claim. See Amisi v. Brooks, 93 F.4th 659, 674- 75 (4th Cir. 2024) (recognizing “the Virginia’s immunity doctrine is congruent with the federal qualified immunity defense” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Wingate v. Fulford, 987 F.3d 299, 312 (4th Cir. 2021). Indeed, we readily adopt the court’s thorough and well-reasoned Summary Judgment Opinion. We therefore reject Acord’s appellate contentions and affirm the final judgment of the district court. See Acord v. Stilley, No. 7:22-cv-00284 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2024), ECF No. 63. AFFIRMED 3

Case Summary

AI Generated

AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Excessive Force
Qualified Immunity
State Law Claims

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJune 6, 2025
Date DecidedJune 6, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
4

Legal Classification

JurisdictionF
Court Type
appellate

Similar Cases

2

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

Rita Keith v. James Griffiths

80% match
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jun 2025

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0281n.06 Case No. 24-3444 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 06, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk RITA KEITH, as Administrator of the Estate of ) Arthur Keith, deceased, and Individually as the ) Natural Parent of Arthur Keith, deceased, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) JAMES GRIFFITHS, in his individual and ) Capacity as an Employee of the Cuyahoga ) Metropolitan Housing Authority, ) OPINION Defendant-Appellee. ) ) Before: COLE, WHITE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. On November 13, 2020, officer James Griffiths fatally shot Arthur Keith. Rita Keith—Keith’s mother and the administrator of his estate—sued Griffiths, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of Keith’s Fourth Amendment rights and various state-law claims.1 Griffiths moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted his motion, finding that Griffiths was entitled to qualified and statutory immunity. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. On November 12, 2020, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department (CMHA PD) received a phone call reporting that a black van with tinted windows allegedly 1 Rita Keith is the administrator of Arthur Keith’s estate. For clarity, we refer to Rita Keith as “plaintiff” and refer to Arthur Keith as “Keith.” No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths involved with a shooting incident earlier that week was parked in a parking lot near a Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority property. Officers responded but did not find the van. The following day, CMHA PD received a second call reporting the same van in the same parking lot. Three CMHA PD officers—Griffiths, Robert Lenz, and Paul Styles—responded. Griffiths proceeded to the passenger’s side of the van, while Styles went to the driver’s side. From the officers’ perspective, the following occurred. Griffiths opened the van’s front passenger door, saw Keith in the backseat, announced it was the police, and instructed Keith: “Let me see your hands.” (Griffiths Dep., R. 69-1, PageID 3066–69.) Keith exited the vehicle on the passenger’s side, sliding the van door open and stepping out. Griffiths observed Keith holding a gun in his left hand “against his stomach, not pointing down, pointing straight across” while attempting to open the van’s door with his right hand. (Id. at PageID 3074.) He ordered Keith to drop the gun. When Keith did not comply, Griffiths drew his gun. Keith “ma[de] three to four steps” away from Griffiths and towards the sidewalk. (Id. at PageID 3083–84.) Then, Keith “turned and raised his left hand up at [Griffiths] as if he was going to shoot.” (Id. at PageID 3083.) Griffiths fired multiple shots—one of which hit Keith in his “left upper back” and exited through his “right chest.” (Armstrong Dep., R. 66-1, PageID 1136, 1140.) Keith fled on foot. Styles and Griffiths pursued for a short distance, until Keith fell to the ground. Styles was the first to reach Keith and observed a gun on the ground near Keith’s right hand. When Griffiths arrived, he also saw the gun next to Keith. Lenz arrived last and administered aid to Keith. Lenz did not see the gun on the ground, but he observed Griffiths holding it. Griffiths claimed he secured the gun because residents of the housing complex began to arrive on the scene. Once commanding officers responded, they secured the weapon in the trunk -2- No. 24-3444, Keith v. Griffiths of a police cruiser

Very Similar Similarity

Castaneda v. Planet Fitness

80% match
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jun 2025

Case: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-51017 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 3, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Rudy Castaneda, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Planet Fitness, Incorporated; John Hensley, Area Director; Uriel LNU, Unit Manager; John Doe, Clerk, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:24-CV-509 ______________________________ Before Davis, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Rudy Castaneda, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Planet Fitness, Inc. and several of its employees for refusing him access to their gym(s) and for terminating his membership. His suit arises under several civil-rights statutes and seeks damages and unspecified injunctive relief. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 No. 24-51017 who recommended the case be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The district judge accepted the recommendation and dismissed the case. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court and AFFIRM its judgment. Castaneda alleges he was denied access to Planet Fitness after he tried to workout in socks and sandals, rather than athletic shoes, to accommodate his diabetic peripheral neuropathy. He concedes he argued with the Planet Fitness clerk who advised him of the athletic-shoe policy, and that he threatened the clerk with a water bottle. In Castaneda’s words, he “motioned his water bottle towards the Clerk and made an empty threat with his bottle . . . as an intimidation.” We address his claims seriatim. First, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses employment discrimination. Castaneda has not alleged an employment relationship with Planet Fitness or its employees, so he fails to state a viable Title VII claim. Second, the due-process provisions of the Texas and U.S. Constitutions generally govern state actors, not private ones like Planet Fitness and its employees. 1 Castaneda hasn’t alleged any state action or facts suggesting an exception to this general rule. Third, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) require proof of a race-based conspiracy. 2 Castaneda offers no allegation about race, aside from mentioning two disabled “Anglo” gym members. We note the magistrate judge gave Castaneda an opportunity to make a more definite statement on _____________________ 1 See Manhattan Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 808–810 (2019) (discussing state-action doctrine); Republican Party of Tex. v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex. 1997) (holding Texas’s Constitution regulates state conduct). 2 Bryan v. City Madison, 213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000). 2 Case: 24-51017 Document: 28-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2025 No. 24-51017 this claim, but he merely reiterated his prior allegations in response. He has not delineated an actionable race-based conspiracy under § 1985(3). Finally, Castaneda’s claim under the ADA’s Title III fails for two reasons. For one, Castaneda’s allegations suggest his membership was terminated because he physically threatened, or was perceived to have threatened, a Planet Fitness clerk, negating any connection between his disability and the revocation of his gym membership. Second, Castaneda initially sought only monetary relief, which is unavailable under Title III of the ADA. 3 When he was permitted to make a more definite statement, Castaneda responded he wanted injunctive relief “so that others do not come across equal distress.” He doesn’t explain what action

Very Similar Similarity

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

June 6, 2025

Jurisdiction

F

Court Type

appellate

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Citations
4
Legal Topics
Excessive Force
Qualified Immunity
State Law Claims

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJun 8, 2025
UpdatedJun 8, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis