Ted Acord v. Chad Stilley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-1934
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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