Case ID: f-appx_106/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James G. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. TERRANGI; Doctor Iberra; Charlyne Broughman-Critzer, Correctional Officer; Cathy Couther; Laurel Corners; James Keeling; Sally Casebolt; Frederick J. Schilling, III; Ms. Dodson; Lalani McCann, Doctor; M.G. Haque, Doctor; Hasan Ozinal, Doctor, Defendants—Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Vernon Smith, Doctor, Defendants.
    No. 04-6503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 28, 2004.
    Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
    James G. Lawrence, Appellant pro se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, Pender & Coward, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, Rawls & McNelis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).
   PER CURIAM.

James G. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants McCann, Iberra and Ozinal on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Lawrence also appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims against Defendants Schilling and Broughman-Critzer. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Lawrence v. Terrangi, No. CA-02-869-2 (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2004). 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 
      
       With regard to the district court’s finding that Lawrence must demonstrate a significant injury to prevail on his claim that Defendants Iberra and Ozinal were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, we find that such a showing is not always necessary. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Regardless, we find that Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was so grossly incompetent, or shocking to the conscience, to be considered deliberately indifferent. See Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).