From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brightwell v. Vincent

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Dec 13, 2010
404 F. App'x 780 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6273.

Submitted: November 18, 2010.

Decided: December 13, 2010.

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).

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.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


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 Bright-well 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, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (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, 2010 WL 445475 (D.Md. Feb. 1, 2010). We also deny Brightwell's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.


Summaries of

Brightwell v. Vincent

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Dec 13, 2010
404 F. App'x 780 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Brightwell v. Vincent

Case Details

Full title:David BRIGHTWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant; v. Captain VINCENT; William…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Dec 13, 2010

Citations

404 F. App'x 780 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Brightwell v. Temesgen

He has also litigated appeals in which his motions for counsel were summarily denied. See Brightwell v.…

Brightwell v. Temesgen

He has also litigated appeals in which his motions for counsel were summarily denied. See Brightwell v.…