Jean Germain v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00382-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999963476]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6117]

Appeal: 16-6117

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6117

JEAN BERNARD GERMAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; AUTUMN DURST; KRISTI CORTEZ;
JANE DOE #2, RN; RICHARD RODERICK; WARDEN BOBBY P. SHEARIN;
CARLA BUCK; LIEUTENANT MCALPINE; LIEUTENANT CROSS; SERGEANT
G. FORNEY; CORPORAL J. WILT; OFFICER CHRISTOPHER PRESTON;
OFFICER JEREMY WOLFORD,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00382-JFM)

Submitted:

July 18, 2016

Decided:

November 7, 2016

Before Chief Judge GREGORY, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se.
Gina Marie Smith,
MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland; Stephanie
Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6117

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jean

Paul

Germain

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

We affirm in part, vacate in

part, and remand.
Germain

claimed

indifferent

to

that

his

medical

unusual punishment.

Comm’rs,

706

Defendants

needs

and

were

engaged

deliberately
in

cruel

and

We review de novo a district court’s order

granting summary judgment.
Sch.

the

F.3d

D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of

256,

258

(4th

Cir.

2013).

“Summary

judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of

law.”

Id.

“In

determining

whether

a

genuine

issue

of

material fact exists, we view the facts, and draw all reasonable
inferences,
party.”

Id.

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

non-moving

However, conflicting evidence will prevent summary

judgment only if it creates a “genuine issue of material fact.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on all
of

Germain’s

claims

except

Germain’s

claim

that

Lieutenant

McAlpine, Officer Preston, and Officer Wolford engaged in cruel
and unusual punishment as they forcibly removed Germain from his
cell.

Germain claims that Preston beat him on his head and
2

Appeal: 16-6117

Doc: 26

face,

knocking

Filed: 11/07/2016

a

tooth

Pg: 3 of 4

loose,

and

that

either

Wolford

or

McAlpine twisted his right foot, causing severe pain.
“[T]he

Eighth

Amendment’s

prohibition

against

‘cruel

and

unusual punishments’ [extends] to the treatment of prisoners by
prison officials . . . [,] forbid[ding] ‘the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain.’”

Hill v. Crum, 727 F.3d 312, 317

(4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319
(1986), abrogated on other grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S.
34 (2010)).

In a case such as this, the question is whether the

force “was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose
of

causing

harm.”

Whitley,

475

U.S.

at

320-21

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
We

observe

that

neither

Preston,

Wolford,

nor

McAlpine

addressed Germain’s claim that, during the cell extraction, he
was punched in the face, knocking a tooth loose, and had his
right foot twisted in such a way to cause severe pain.

The

Defendants did not refute the claim or show that the use of such
force was justified under the circumstances. *
fact

that

these

three

Defendants

failed

In light of the
to

address

this

particular claim, we are compelled to vacate that part of the
*

We note that the record conclusively shows that the
Defendants’ use of pepper spray was not cruel and unusual
punishment and Germain was not denied a decontamination shower.

3

Appeal: 16-6117

Doc: 26

court’s

Filed: 11/07/2016

order

addressing

Pg: 4 of 4

this

claim

and

remand

for

further

proceedings.
Finally, we have considered Germain’s claims that he was
denied

due

discretion

process
granting

denying

Germain’s

denying

his

and

that

appointed

subsequent

motion

for

the

district

counsel’s
motion

recusal,

to

and

court

motion
appoint

find

abused

to

withdraw,

counsel,

these

its

claims

and
are

without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, and vacate in part, and
remand that part of the district court’s order granting summary
judgment

to

Preston,

Wolford,

and

McAlpine

on

the

issue

of

whether they engaged in cruel and unusual punishment while they
were removing Germain from his cell.

We 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 IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

4