Estate of Peola Wingfield v. Michelle Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to submit on the briefs (Local Rule 34(e)) [998759824-2] Originating case number: 3:06-cv-00247-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998899049].. [11-1424]

Appeal: 11-1424

Doc: 61

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1424

ESTATE OF PEOLA WINGFIELD, DECEASED, By and Through His
Administratrix, Edna K. Thompson,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RICHARD
E.
CURTIS,
JR.,
M.D.,
Individually;
WILLIAM
RHOADES, Dr., PH.D., Individually and In His Official
Capacity as Psychologist and Employee of the Richmond City
Jail; JAMES O. WOMACK, Captain, Individually and In His
Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail;
DERRICK MCGEE, Individually and In His Official Capacity as
an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES
SHERIFFS; UNKNOWN NURSES; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS;
OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE RICHMOND CITY JAIL,
Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Employees
of the Richmond City Jail,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Individually and in Her Official
Capacity as Sheriff of the City of Richmond; DR. CHANG,
M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as an
Employee of the Richmond City Jail; JACK FREUND, M.D.,
Individually and In His Official Capacity as Medical
Director for the Division of Medical Services for the Jail;
DR. ZELDA JOHNSON, M.D., Individually and in His Official
Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SGT.
CUSHIONBERRY, Individually and In His Official Capacity as
an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SGT. WILKINS,
Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of
the Richmond City Jail; HERBERT R. ANDERSON, Individually
and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond
City Jail; NURSE SMITH, Individually and in His Official
Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; NURSE

Appeal: 11-1424

Doc: 61

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

MILLS, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an
Employee of the Richmond City Jail; WARNER LIPSCOMB,
Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of
the Richmond City Jail; JERON BROOKS, Individually and In
His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City
Jail,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00247-JRS)

Submitted:

March 30, 2012

Decided:

July 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. William D. Prince, IV, THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia; Brewster S. Rawls, Ramon Rodriguez, III,
RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1424

Doc: 61

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
This case arises out of the death of an inmate, Peola
Wingfield,

in

the

Estate

(“the

naming

numerous

Richmond

Estate”)
Jail

City

Jail

an

action

filed

employees

as

(“Jail”).
in

the

defendants,

Wingfield’s

district

court

raising

claims

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), as well as several state
law claims, including medical malpractice, breach of contract,
ordinary and gross negligence, and wrongful death.
After years of litigation, including a prior appeal to
this court resulting in a remand, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The Estate timely

appealed.
On appeal, the Estate raises nine issues: (1) whether
the district court erred in denying its motion to deem admitted
the

allegations

in

(2) whether

the

Richardson’s

expert

death;

whether

(3)

the

Revised

Second

Amended

court

erred

in

district

testimony
the

regarding

district

Complaint;

excluding

Wingfield’s

court

erred

in

Dr.

cause

of

denying

Wingfield’s estate’s motion for leave to supplement an expert
opinion report; (4) whether the district court erred in limiting
the testimony of Dr. Rouhier, Wingfield’s treating physician in
the emergency room at Retreat Hospital, to matters regarding his
treatment
treating

of

Wingfield;

physician

(5)

created

whether
a

genuine
3

testimony
issue

of

of

Wingfield’s

material

fact

Appeal: 11-1424

Doc: 61

regarding

the

judgment

Filed: 07/20/2012

cause

error;

determining

of

Wingfield’s

(6)

that

Pg: 4 of 5

whether

the

Estate

court

to

failed

rendering

district

the

death

certain

show

summary

erred

in

elements

required to state a claim for the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006);

(7) whether the district court erred in finding that

Dr. Rhoades did not act with deliberate indifference, was not
grossly negligent, or that his deliberate indifference did not
cause Wingfield’s death; (8) whether the district court erred in
finding that Captain Womack had no role in treating Wingfield
other than meeting with Wingfield’s family and denying them a
visit with Wingfield; and (9) whether the district court erred
in granting summary judgment to Nurse McGee on the § 1983 claim.
This

court

reviews

the

trial

decisions for abuse of discretion.
953,

958-59

(4th

Cir.

2008).

court’s

discovery

Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d

After

thorough

review

of

the

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion

in

reaching

its

decision

on

the

discovery-related

issues.
With regard to the remaining claims, we have reviewed
the extensive and well-reasoned opinion of the district court,
and find no reversible error.
reasons

stated

by

the

Accordingly, we affirm for the

district

court.

Estate

of

Peola

Wingfield v. Curtis, No. 3:06-cv-00247-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 28,
2011).
4

Appeal: 11-1424

Doc: 61

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 5 of 5

We grant the motion to submit on briefs and 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

5