Roylin Beale v. Deputy Madigan
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-ct-03244-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999917736]. Mailed to: Roylin Beale. [14-7394]
Appeal: 14-7394
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/26/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7394
ROYLIN JUNIUS BEALE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPUTY J. P. MADIGAN; OFFICER
OFFICER PEELE; OFFICER CORPREW,
R.
BLOW;
OFFICER
HARLESS;
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CAPTAIN PHILLIPS,
Defendant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 14-9707)
Submitted:
August 24, 2016
Decided:
August 26, 2016
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roylin Junius Beale, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,
SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7394
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/26/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Roylin Junius Beale filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him
while he was a pretrial detainee at the Pitt County Detention
Center
and
that
they
were
resulting medical needs.
deliberately
indifferent
to
his
The district court granted Defendants’
motion for summary judgment.
We affirmed the court’s order.
See Beale v. Madigan, 589 F. App’x 107 (4th Cir. 2014) (per
curiam).
On October 5, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Beale’s
petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and
remanded to this court for further consideration in light of
Kingsley
v.
Hendrickson,
135
S.
Ct.
2466
(2015).
We
have
received the parties’ supplemental briefs, and this matter is
ripe for disposition.
In
detainee
Kingsley,
asserting
the
Supreme
Court
held
an
excessive
force
that
claim
must
a
pretrial
demonstrate
“only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was
objectively unreasonable.”
whether
the
force
was
135 S. Ct. at 2473.
objectively
In determining
unreasonable,
a
court
considers the evidence “from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the
time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)).
such
as
the
following
may
bear
2
on
the
Id. (citing
Considerations
reasonableness
or
Appeal: 14-7394
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/26/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the
need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the
extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer
to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the
security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by
the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.
Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473.
Moreover, it is appropriate to
determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable in
“full context,” as a segmented view of the events “misses the
forest for the trees.”
Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 101 (4th Cir.
2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
Viewed from this legal lens, in the light most favorable to
Beale to the extent supported by the record, we conclude that
the officers’ actions did not amount to excessive force and that
the district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment
to the Defendants.
order.
legal
before
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?