PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1874

JAMES BRADY, d/b/a JB & HM Enterprises, Inc.; DANNY GROUP, LLC; BLAZIAN PROMOTIONS & COMPANY, LLC; HECTOR MELENDEZ,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH; JOHN PEDERSON,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:19−cv−00107−JD)

Argued: March 18, 2025 Decided: May 16, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and Jasmine H. YOON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Rushing and Judge Yoon joined.

ARGUED: Tucker S. Player, PLAYER LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Robert W. Humphrey, II, WILLOUGHBY HUMPHREY & D’ANTONI P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas Brittain, BRITTAIN LAW FIRM, P.A., Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellants. Michael W. Battle, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1874 Doc: 74 Filed: 05/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 12

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns the City of Myrtle Beach’s response to a violent crime surge in

an area known as “the Superblock.” In 2015 and 2016 alone, eleven people were shot in

the Superblock. Dozens more were sexually assaulted, battered, or robbed. Because most

of these crimes occurred in or around a small cluster of bars, the City increased its police

presence in the area and began closely investigating the establishments for compliance with

state and local safety regulations. Despite these measures, crime continued unabated. The

City ultimately shut down two of the bars for repeated legal violations, and a third bar

closed on its own due to lack of business.

Years later, the three bars and the landlord of one of the bars sued the City and the

City Manager, bringing claims under the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal

Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. At bottom, each claim alleged that the City

unlawfully targeted the bars because their owners and clientele were predominantly racial

minorities. During the course of a jury trial, the district court granted directed verdicts for

the City on all claims.

We now affirm the district court. It is clear from the record that the City acted within

its lawful authority to address serious public safety threats and enforce compliance with

state and local regulations. Appellants’ claims to the contrary rest on nothing more than

speculation and are unsupported by the evidence presented at trial.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1874 Doc: 74 Filed: 05/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 12

I.

We begin by reciting the relevant facts introduced at trial. Because we are reviewing

grants of directed verdicts for the City, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to

appellants. See Horne v. WTVR, LLC, 893 F.3d 201, 210 (4th Cir. 2018).

The Superblock is a small commercial area in downtown Myrtle Beach. Prior to

2013, it experienced minimal violent crime. Between 2013 and 2016, however, violent

crime began to surge when several late-night establishments opened in the Superblo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document