Baxter Vinson v. Alan Wall
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:10-cv-00847-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court. [999337245].. [13-6576]
Appeal: 13-6576
Doc: 39
Filed: 04/16/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6576
BAXTER FELIX VINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALAN WALLS, Doctor; KAREN MCCULLOUGH; MARIE SHERMAN, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
SHARONDA SUTTON; LARRY CARTLEDGE; ROBERT POILETMAN, MD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:10-cv-00847-CMC)
Argued:
March 26, 2014
Decided:
April 16, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellants. James Bernice Moore, III, Scott
Christopher Evans, BELL LEGAL GROUP, Georgetown, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South
Carolina, for Appellants.
Appeal: 13-6576
Doc: 39
Filed: 04/16/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
Appeal: 13-6576
Doc: 39
Filed: 04/16/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Baxter Felix Vinson, Jr. (Vinson), a state prisoner housed
in
the
South
Carolina
Department
of
Corrections
(the
SCDC),
brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Dr. Alan Walls,
M.D.,
Karen
McCullough,
L.P.N.,
and
Marie
Sherman,
R.N.
(collectively the Appellants), among others not relevant in this
appeal,
alleging,
deliberately
inter
indifferent
alia,
to
that
his
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
the
serious
Appellants
medical
needs
were
in
At the time of the incident
in question, March 7-8, 2008, the Appellants were employees of
the SCDC.
the
The crux of Vinson’s Eighth Amendment claim against
Appellants
is:
(1)
the
Appellants
knew
that
Vinson’s
intestine was protruding from his abdomen following his selfmutilation; (2) the Appellants recognized that this condition
was a life threatening medical emergency while Vinson was housed
in a holding cell; and (3) even though the Appellants recognized
that
Vinson’s
condition
was
a
life
threatening
medical
emergency, they withheld or unreasonably delayed treatment by
placing him in a restraint chair for several hours.
The
entitled
district
to
court
qualified
held
that
immunity
on
the
Appellants
Vinson’s
Eighth
were
not
Amendment
claim against them because a jury could conclude, based on the
evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to Vinson, that
the Appellants were deliberately indifferent to Vinson’s serious
- 3 -
Appeal: 13-6576
Doc: 39
medical needs.
Filed: 04/16/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)
(“It is enough [to establish Eighth Amendment liability] that
the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a
substantial risk [to inmate health or safety].”).
Accordingly,
the district court denied the Appellants’ request for summary
judgment on Vinson’s Eighth Amendment claim against them.
The
Appellants challenge this ruling on appeal.
Having
reviewed
the
parties’
submissions,
the
district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, and having heard oral
argument, we conclude that the district court correctly denied
the Appellants’ request for summary judgment on Vinson’s Eighth
Amendment claim against them.
Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court’s comprehensive opinion.
v.
Sutton,
C/A
No.
0:10-847-CMC-PJG,
2013
WL
980267
Vinson
(D.S.C.
March 13, 2013).
AFFIRMED
- 4 -
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?