*415OPINION
James Edward Miller appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, given the parties’ burdens of proof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255; Smith v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir.1996).
Miller claims that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they removed Miller’s son from his custody. The Defendants stated that they were acting pursuant to a court order, but never provided a copy of such an order. Miller provided a court order requiring the child to be returned to his custody, for the two-week period in dispute. Therefore, whether the Defendants were acting pursuant to a court order, or in contravention of one, is a genuine issue of material fact. We conclude that, as to this claim, the district court erred in granting summary judgment. We vacate that portion of the district court’s order and remand the action for further proceedings.
As to Miller’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to those claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Miller v. Pierce, No. CA-99-50-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.