Ted Acord, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Acord v. Chad Stilley

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --