Maytham Al-Taie v. Seven C's Building Maintenance, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 22, 2023
• Docket: 21-2034
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2034 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2034

MAYTHAM AL-TAIE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SEVEN C’S BUILDING MAITENANCE, INC.,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:20−cv−00298−TJS)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: June 22, 2023

Before HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Ryan P. Richie, WILSON & PARLETT, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael L. Pivor, KIERNAN TREBACH LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2034 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Maytham Al-Taie appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to

Seven C’s Building Maintenance, Inc. (“SCBM”) in Al-Taie’s personal injury action. On

appeal, Al-Taie argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the

ground that Al-Taie was contributorily negligent as a matter of law when he walked out

onto a marble floor that was being mopped by employees of SCBM and then slipped and

fell on the wet floor.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and “view the

evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party.” Lee Graham Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Estate of Kirsch, 777 F.3d 678, 681 (4th Cir.

2015) (cleaned up). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘the movant shows that

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.’” Chapman v. Oakland Living Ctr., Inc., 48 F.4th 222, 228 (4th Cir.

2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

Under the governing law of the District of Columbia, a plaintiff’s contributory

negligence acts as a complete defense to the defendant’s liability. Dennis v. Jones, 928

A.2d 672, 676 (D.C. 2007). The burden is on the defendant to “establish, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care,” Poyner

v. Loftus, 694 A.2d 69, 71 (D.C. 1997), by acting “with the prudence of an ordinary

reasonable person under the circumstances,” Queen v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,

842 F.2d 476, 479 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (applying District of Columbia law). Here, the district

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2034 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

court found that the evidentiary record compelled the conclusion that Al-Taie failed to

exercise reasonable care under this objective standard.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and agree with the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED