Williams v. Officer Robertson , 404 F. App'x 783 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6204
    LARRY WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    OFFICER ROBERTSON; WARDEN MCCALL; MAJOR BUSH; CAROLINE
    LINDSEY, Staff Attorney; LT. WILLIAMS; LT. EARL; CAPT.
    ABSTEN; CAPT. TICH; DEBRA BARNWELL; MR. JON OZMINT,
    Director; STEPHEN CLAYTON, Warden,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.     Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (3:08-cv-03867-MBS)
    Submitted:   November 12, 2010              Decided:   December 13, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
    O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Williams, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the
    district          court’s   order     accepting        the    recommendation       of   the
    magistrate         judge    and    denying     relief    on    his   
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    (2006) complaint.            Relying on Riley v. Dorton, 
    115 F.3d 1159
    ,
    1168 (4th Cir. 1997), Norman v. Taylor, 
    25 F.3d 1259
     (4th Cir.
    1994), and related cases, the district court granted Defendants’
    motion for summary judgment, based on the finding that Williams’
    alleged injuries were too de minimis to establish a claim for
    excessive          force.         Following     the     district     court’s     opinion,
    however, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wilkins v.
    Gaddy, 
    130 S. Ct. 1175
     (2010), which abrogated our decisions in
    Riley and Norman.            Thus, we vacate the district court’s opinion
    and remand for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s
    opinion in Wilkins. ∗              We deny Williams’ motions for appointment
    of counsel as moot and 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.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    ∗
    In so remanding, we find no fault by the district court,
    which followed extant circuit precedent.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6204

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 783

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024