Janiele Von Evelyn Hamden v. Ellen Denny, in her professional capacity as an employee of Radford City Public Schools

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1415
JANIELE VON EVELYN HAMDEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ELLEN DENNY, in her professional capacity as an employee of Radford City
Public Schools and in her individual capacity; ROBERT G. GRAHAM, in his
professional capacity as an employee of Radford City Public Schools and in his
individual capacity; MICHAEL BROWN, in his professional capacity as an
employee of Radford City Public Schools and in his individual capacity; ERIC
BUCEY, in his individual capacity,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Court Judge. (7:20−cv−00236−EKD−RSB)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Monica L. Mroz, Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Nathan H. Schnetzler, FRITH ANDERSON + PEAKE,
P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee Eric Bucey. Christopher S. Dadak, GUYNN,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
WADDELL, CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees Robert
Graham, Ellen Denny and Michael Brown.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Janiele Von Evelyn Hamden appeals a district court order granting summary
judgment to the defendants on her federal and state malicious prosecution claims and an
associated conspiracy claim. The district court concluded that Hamden’s malicious
prosecution claims failed as a matter of law because there was no record evidence that the
defendants, through their initial reports of Hamden’s suspected misconduct, had caused her
prosecution. Instead, independent acts by subsequent decisionmakers – a state police
officer’s investigation, a prosecutor’s decision to bring charges, and a grand jury’s return
of indictments – intervened and broke any causal link between the defendant’s conduct and
Hamden’s prosecution. Nor, the court held, could Hamden demonstrate that she was seized
without probable cause, as required to make out a malicious prosecution claim, because the
grand jury’s decision to indict conclusively established the existence of probable cause.
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)).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and agree with the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to
defendants Ellen Denny, Robert Graham, Michael Brown, and Eric Bucey. We dispense

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --