Eugene Dunston v. Donnie Harrison , 585 F. App'x 190 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6214
EUGENE N. DUNSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHERIFF DONNIE HARRISON, in his official and individual
capacities; MICHAEL J. HAYES, Wake County Sheriff's Office
Detention Officer, in his individual capacity; WACO
DOUGLAS, JR., Former Wake County Sheriff's Office Detention
Officer, in his individual capacity; OHIO CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety; DUANE D. GREENFIELD, Wake
County Sheriff's Office Detention Officer, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00747-F)
Argued: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 18, 2014
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: James Nicholas Ellis, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Rocky Mount,
North Carolina, for Appellants. Eric Laurence Doggett, DOGGETT
LAW OFFICES, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Caroline P. Mackie, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Dunston (Dunston) brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against Waco Douglas, Jr. (Officer Douglas) and Duane
Greenfield (Lieutenant Greenfield) (collectively the
Appellants), among others not relevant in this appeal. Dunston
alleges, inter alia, that the use of excessive force on three
separate occasions--one involving Officer Douglas and two
involving Lieutenant Greenfield--violated his rights under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the date of
the incidents in question, September 25, 2010, the Appellants
were employees of the Wake County, North Carolina Sheriff’s
Department assigned to the Wake County Detention Center (WCDC),
and Dunston was a pretrial detainee at the WCDC.
The Appellants moved for summary judgment on Dunston’s due
process claims, raising the defense of qualified immunity. The
district court held that the Appellants were not entitled to
qualified immunity because Dunston had shown the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Appellants had
violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. In the district
court’s view, a jury could conclude, based on the evidence
viewed in the light most favorable to Dunston, that unnecessary
and wanton pain and suffering was inflicted upon him on each
occasion in question. See Carr v. Deeds, 453 F.3d 593, 605 (4th
Cir. 2006) (noting that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a
- 3 -
pretrial detainee must show that the defendant inflicted
unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering upon him). On appeal,
the Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their
motion for summary judgment on Dunston’s due process claims.
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, and having heard oral
argument, we conclude that the district court correctly denied
the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment on Dunston’s due
process claims. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court’s comprehensive opinion. Dunston v. Harrison,
No. 5:11-cv-747-F, 2014 WL 126047 (E.D.N.C. January 14, 2014).
AFFIRMED
- 4 -