Jean Germain v. Bobby Shearin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01613-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999349141]. Mailed to: Germain. [14-6144]
Appeal: 14-6144
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/02/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6144
JEAN BERNARD GERMAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN; JAMES HOLWAGER; LIEUTENANT HARBAUGH; SERGEANT
SMITH; BRUCE A. LILLER; SERGEANT MCALPINE; LAURA MOULDEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01613-JFM)
Submitted:
April 28, 2014
Decided:
May 2, 2014
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6144
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/02/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jean Bernard Germain appeals a district court order
granting summary judgment to Sergeant Smith.
We review de novo
a district court’s grant of summary judgment, “viewing the facts
and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.”
291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008).
Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d
Summary judgment is proper “if the
movant shows that 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).
We affirm.
A viable claim that a prison official did not provide
adequate medical care has an objective and subjective component.
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff
must show that the official acted with deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need.
Id.
A serious medical need is “one
that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or
one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily
recognize
the
necessity
(internal
quotation
for
marks
a
doctor’s
omitted).
An
attention.”
official
Id.,
acts
with
deliberate indifference when he knows of and disregards the risk
posed by the serious medical need.
deliberate indifference.
aspects.
knowledge
It
of
must
the
be
risk
Id.
Mere negligence is not
Deliberate indifference has two
shown
of
Id.
that
harm
2
to
the
the
officer
inmate”
had
and
“actual
that
the
Appeal: 14-6144
Doc: 11
Filed: 05/02/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
officer must have “recognized that his actions were insufficient
to mitigate the risk of harm.
Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude that the record does not show that there
was a genuine dispute on the issue of whether Sergeant Smith
recognized that his actions were insufficient to mitigate the
risk
of
order.
legal
before
harm.
Accordingly,
we
affirm
the
district
court’s
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
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?