David Brightwell v. Captain Vincent

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998292734-2] Originating case number: 8:09-cv-00816-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998483738] [10-6273]

Download PDF
David Brightwell v. Captain Vincent Doc. 0 Case: 10-6273 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6273 DAVID BRIGHTWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN VINCENT; WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Warden; JOHN DOE, Doctor; MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION-JESSUP; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:09-cv-00816-DKC) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Mary Beth Ewen, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6273 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: David Brightwell appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellees and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the This court reviews de novo Howard v. Winter, judgment answers with is to the a district court's grant of summary judgment. 446 F.3d 559, 565 (4th the and Cir. 2006). Summary appropriate when "pleadings, admissions on depositions, file, interrogatories, together affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Insofar as Brightwell claimed he was the victim of excessive force, we affirm on alternate grounds. We conclude Brightwell failed to show there was a genuine issue as to any material fact regarding his claim that Captain Vincent's conduct was an example of excessive conduct and not a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline. 503 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1992). See Hudson v. McMillian, With regard to Brightwell's claim that medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brightwell v. Captain Vincent, No. 8:09-cv-00816-DKC We also deny Brightwell's motion for We dispense with oral argument because 2 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2010). appointment of counsel. Case: 10-6273 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?