Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Mary E. Beasley (“Beasley”) appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in her civil action alleging Defendants used excessive force against her son, Darryl Beasley, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), resulting in his death. Beasley further asserted common law state claims of wrongful death *289 and conspiracy. The district court concluded that Beasley failed to produce evidence establishing that Defendants’ conduct violated the decedent’s constitutional rights and that, even if a violation occurred, Defendants’ actions were not so unreasonable as to place them outside the scope of qualified immunity. The district court further denied relief on Beasley’s state law claims.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment shall be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 872, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by the existence of any factual dispute; “[ojnly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “Conelusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of’ the nonmoving party’s case. Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted on appeal and conclude that the district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beasley v. Brown, No. 3:12-cv-00006-JAG-MHL, 2013 WL 1288030 (E.D.Va. Mar. 27, 2013). We dispense 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.