Jerry Oaks v. Dr. Pane ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7681
    JERRY R. OAKS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DR. PANE, Doctor, USP Lee County, VA; KAREN LAMBRIGHT,
    Health Services Administrator, USP Lee County VA,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00041-JLK-RSB)
    Submitted:   June 22, 2012                 Decided:   July 10, 2012
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry R. Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, David Lew,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry    R.     Oaks     appeals         the    district       court’s     order
    granting      judgment        against       him    on   his     Bivens 1    claims.        Oaks’
    complaint       alleged        that         the       defendants       were        deliberately
    indifferent      to     his    medical        needs     in     violation      of    the   Eighth
    Amendment.       We affirm.
    Having    reviewed        the    record,         we    find   the    district       court
    correctly      determined        that       Oaks      failed    to   establish        a   viable
    claim against either defendant. 2                        Specifically,         Oaks did not
    allege       facts     sufficient       to        indicate      that    either       defendant
    actually knew of and intentionally ignored his serious need for
    medical care.          See Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 
    238 F.3d 567
    ,
    575 (4th Cir. 2001); Russell v. Sheffer, 
    528 F.2d 318
    , 319 (4th
    Cir. 1975).          Accordingly, we find no error in the disposition of
    Oaks’ claims and affirm the judgment below.                                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
    1
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
    Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971).
    2
    The record is ambiguous as to whether Oaks justifiably
    believed he had exhausted his administrative remedies.  Rather
    than remand for further proceedings, we affirm on the district
    court’s alternative holding.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7681

Judges: Motz, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024