Samuel Junior Jackson v. Sher Guleria

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-ct-03221-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999886671]. Mailed to: Jackson. [16-6135]

Appeal: 16-6135

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6135

SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. SHER GULERIA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
N.C. D.O.C. MEDICAL STAFF; DR. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03221-F)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 13, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Junior Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Kelly Street Brown,
Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6135

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Samuel

Junior

Jackson

filed

a

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint alleging that prison doctors Lightsey and Guleria were
deliberately

indifferent

to

his

serious

medical

needs.

The

district court dismissed Jackson’s complaint against the doctors
for failure to state a claim.
affirmed

the

dismissal

of

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
the

claim

against

Lightsey,

We
but

vacated the dismissal of the claim against Guleria and remanded
for further proceedings.

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

177-79 (4th Cir. 2014).
Jackson’s

motion

for

On remand, the district court denied
appointment

Guleria’s motion for summary judgment.

of

counsel

and

granted

Jackson now appeals both

orders.
We

review

a

district

court’s

denial

of

a

motion

for

appointment of counsel in a civil case for abuse of discretion,
Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987), and the
“court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,”
Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 407
(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
reviewed

the

record

in

light

of

these

standards

We have
and

the

arguments presented in Jackson’s informal brief and have found
no reversible error.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

2

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 16-6135

Doc: 14

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

affirm the district court’s orders.

Jackson v. Guleria, No.

5:11-ct-03221-F (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015 & Jan. 20, 2016).
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