Brightwell v. Captain Vincent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6273
DAVID BRIGHTWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN VINCENT; WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Warden; JOHN DOE,
Doctor; MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION-JESSUP; CORRECTIONAL
MEDICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00816-DKC)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip
Melton Andrews, Mary Beth Ewen, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Brightwell appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Appellees and denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. This court reviews de novo
a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Howard v. Winter,
446 F.3d 559, 565 (4th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is
appropriate when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Insofar as Brightwell claimed he was the victim of
excessive force, we affirm on alternate grounds. We conclude
Brightwell failed to show there was a genuine issue as to any
material fact regarding his claim that Captain Vincent’s conduct
was an example of excessive conduct and not a good faith effort
to maintain and restore discipline. See Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1992). With regard to Brightwell’s claim that
medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Brightwell v. Captain Vincent, No. 8:09-cv-00816-DKC
(D. Md. Feb. 1, 2010). We also deny Brightwell’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3