Michael Cook v. Robert Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-ct-03219-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999617510]. Mailed to: Michael O. Cook. [15-6168]

Appeal: 15-6168

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6168

MICHAEL O. COOK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT JONES, Warden; SGT. CASEY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
G. SOLOMON; ROBERT C. LEWIS; S. COBBS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:12-ct-03219-D)

Submitted:

June 22, 2015

Decided:

July 9, 2015

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael O. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Jodi Harrison, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6168

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael

O.

Cook

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his civil
rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
review de novo an order granting summary judgment.
Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014).

We

Wilkins v.

Summary judgment

is appropriate if a party “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).

To establish a claim under the Eight Amendment that prison
officials did not protect him from harm caused by other inmates,
Cook must show that the prison officials possessed “a sufficiently
culpable state of mind,” including deliberate indifference to
inmate health or safety.

Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 346-

47 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To meet

the high standard of deliberate indifference, Cook must submit
evidence “suggesting that the prison official had actual knowledge
of an excessive risk” to his health or safety.

Id. at 347.

The

prison official must be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that there was a substantial risk of harm to Cook,
and “must also draw the inference.”
omitted).

Id. (internal quotation marks

Constructive notice is insufficient to show actual

knowledge, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840-42 (1994), nor is
it

enough

that

the

prison

official
2

should

have

recognized

a

Appeal: 15-6168

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/09/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

substantial risk, Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294,
303 (4th Cir. 2004).
negligent

also

indifference.

A showing that the prison official was merely

falls

short

of

establishing

deliberate

Danser, 772 F.3d at 347.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Cook failed to submit evidence showing a genuine dispute regarding
whether either of the Defendants had actual knowledge that other
inmates posed an excessive risk to Cook’s safety. We also conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying Cook’s
motion for appointment of counsel. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,
1153 (4th Cir. 1978).

Finally, Cook fails to show that he was

denied any discoverable evidence or that the court abused its
discretion denying his discovery requests.

See Kolon Indus. Inc.

v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 172 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3