Khaliq v. Patrick ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-7734
    JAMI' A. KHALIQ,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    D. PATRICK, Officer, Jasper Lock-up Unit;
    ELLIS GREENE, Nurse, A.C.I. Medical Unit,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-95-3261-2-17AJ)
    Submitted:   September 25, 1997           Decided:   October 20, 1997
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jami' A. Khaliq, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, EARLY
    & NESS, Bamberg, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II,
    James Miller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A.,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief
    on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate
    judge's recommendation dismissing Appellant's claim of deliberate
    indifference to a serious medical need, see Estelle v. Gamble, 
    429 U.S. 97
     (1976), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Khaliq v. Patrick,
    No. CA-95-3261-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 1996; July 3, 1996). We also
    conclude that the district court did not err in entering judgment
    adverse to Appellant on his claim of excessive use of force. See
    Graham v. Connor, 
    490 U.S. 386
     (1989). Appellant failed to create
    a genuine issue of material fact regarding any more than de minimis
    injury resulting from the alleged use of force on the part of the
    prison guard. See Norman v. Taylor, 
    25 F.3d 1259
    , 1263 (4th Cir.
    1994). 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-7734

Filed Date: 10/20/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021