Antwan Daniels v. Prentice Benston
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03286-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: A. Daniels. [16-6327]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
JAMES C. WILLIS; ELDRON C. LEWIS; MELTON M. MELVIN,
PRENTICE BENSTON; PHIL CORBETT,
Defendants - Appellees,
RODNEY HESTER; BENNY LENNON; DONNIE ALMAN,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03286-FL)
July 28, 2016
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
August 25, 2016
Pg: 2 of 4
Antwan Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE
CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
Antwan Daniels appeals the district court’s order granting
§ 1983 (2012) action claiming a delay in treatment with respect
to a shoulder injury and unsanitary conditions in the Bladen
County Jail (BCJ).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in
granting summary judgment to Appellee Benston on Daniels’ claim
against him for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
because there is no record evidence tending to suggest or show
Daniels’ health during his stay in the BCJ.
Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014).
See Jackson v.
To the extent that
Daniels sought to hold Benston liable in a supervisory capacity,
knowledge by Benston that any subordinate of his was engaged in
We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling granting summary
judgment to Benston in this regard.
See Bryant v. Bell Atl.
Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002).
With respect to
Pg: 4 of 4
No. 5:13-ct-03286-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2016).
We grant Daniels’ motions to supplement informal brief, to
With respect to Daniels’ motion to submit
letter evidence and for judgment, we grant the motion in part
evidence but denying the request for judgment.
We deny Daniels’
expense, for a default judgment, to compel document production,
for entry of default, for a permanent injunction, for discovery
materials, to reverse the district court’s ruling, and to add a
We also deny Appellees’ motions to strike
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?