Thompson v. Carlisle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7863
LAWRENCE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARY B. CARLISLE, d/b/a CEO Admin.; KEITH DAVIS, d/b/a
Security Off.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00452)
Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Sue Utt, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Thompson appeals the district court’s
judgment order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
We review a district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo. Jennings v. University of N.C., 482 F.3d 686,
694 (4th Cir. 2007). “At the summary judgment stage, facts must
be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the
pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and
any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The relevant inquiry in
a summary judgment analysis is “whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or
whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
251-52 (1986). An otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment will not be defeated by the existence of some
factual dispute; rather, only disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
2
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248.
Indeed, to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-
moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to
reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for
trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see Thompson v. Potomac Elec.
Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Conclusory or
speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence” in support of the non-moving party’s
case.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
We find Thompson failed to show a genuine issue of
material fact that would affect the outcome of his complaint
under the governing law. He failed to show Davis’ conduct was
anything more than negligent. See Beck v. Wilson, 377 F.3d 884,
890 (8th Cir. 2004). He also failed to show that those
attending to his medical needs exercised anything other than
their professional judgment. See Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d
829, 838-39 (4th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
3