Emmanuel Shaw v. T. Foreman

── Emmanuel Shaw v. T. Foreman ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-7015 Doc: 72 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 1 of 9 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7015 EMMANUEL KING SHAW, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. T. S. FOREMAN, Unit Manager; M. MURPHY, Unit Manager; T. LENBOUGH, Hearings Officer; N. L. LEACH; F. L. ADAMS, Lieutenant, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01286-CMH-IDD) Argued: March 18, 2026 Decided: June 4, 2026 Amended: June 5, 2026 Before GREGORY, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and Judge Berner joined. ARGUED: Emma Rose Bagwell, Chandler S.K. Cresswell, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Athens, Georgia, for Appellant. Tillman J. Breckenridge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas V. Burch, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Athens, Georgia, for Appellant. Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, Kevin M. Gallagher, Solicitor General, Meredith L. Baker, Deputy Solicitor General, Ethan C. Treacy, Assistant Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7015 Doc: 72 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 2 of 9 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7015 Doc: 72 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 3 of 9 GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff brings procedural due process claims and First Amendment retaliation claims against prison officials. While incarcerated, Plaintiff was accused of an indecent exposure offense. He claimed his innocence and repeatedly insisted that officials view allegedly exculpatory video footage. Officials repeatedly refused to watch this footage and ultimately convicted him of the offense. Despite Plaintiff’s request to preserve the footage, Defendants failed to do so. During litigation, Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants while the sanctions motion was still pending before the magistrate judge. Plaintiff brings this appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in failing to rule on the sanctions motion and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Because the footage at the heart of the sanctions motion was crucial to the merits of the case, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand with instructions to consider the sanctions motion in full. I. Plaintiff Emmanuel King Shaw is an incarcerated person who was serving time in Sussex 1 State Prison (“Sussex 1”) in Virginia. In July 2017, Mr. Shaw was accused of an indecent exposure offense. Mr. Shaw repeatedly denied committing the offense and asked prison officials to check video footage from a RapidEye camera, which would allegedly show that when the alleged incident took place in a bathroom, Mr. Shaw was sitting in a stairwell elsewhere. According to Mr. Shaw, prison officials repeatedly declined to review 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7015 Doc: 72 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 4 of 9 the vi