Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06680/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06680-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Correctional Officer Beasley
Appellee
Correctional Officer Comilloni

Jeremy R. Love
Appellant
Correctional Officer McCourt
Appellee
Sergeant Young
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6680

JEREMY R. LOVE,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BEASLEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

MCCOURT; SERGEANT YOUNG,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COMILLONI,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03209-BO)

Submitted: November 26, 2019 Decided: January 6, 2020

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy R. Love, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6680 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy R. Love, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Defendants on Love’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging the 

use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On appeal, Love argues that 

summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact exist.

In his declaration in support of his complaint, Love admitted that he initiated a 

fistfight with Correctional Officer Beasley but alleged that after he was taken to the ground 

and restrained, Beasley twice punched him in the face. Thereafter, Sergeant Young, 

Officer McCourt, and another officer took Love to the Sergeant’s office. While Love was 

seated in a chair, Young elbowed Love in the face in retaliation for Love hitting Beasley. 

Love fell to the floor and was repeatedly kicked and punched in the head, face and body. 

Beasley denied punching Love after Love was restrained, and Young’s and McCourt’s 

affidavits deny that Love was elbowed, kicked or punched while in the Sergeant’s office. 

We review de novo a district court’s award of summary judgment, viewing 

the facts and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. A summary judgment award is 

appropriate only when the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Core Commc’ns, Inc. v. Verizon Md. LLC, 744 F.3d 310, 320 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return 

a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Matherly v. Andrews, 859 F.3d 264, 279 (4th Cir. 

2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the 

evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not 

those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6680 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 2 of 5
3

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “[W]here affidavits present conflicting versions of 

the facts which require credibility determinations, summary judgment cannot lie.” Raynor 

v. Pugh, 817 F.3d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, 

“[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted 

by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that 

version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. 

Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (concluding that video of incident contradicted plaintiff’s 

version of events so “that no reasonable jury could have believed him”). 

State and federal inmates are protected under the Eighth Amendment from the 

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” by prison staff. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 

312, 319 (1986). “An inmate’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim involves both an 

objective and a subjective component. The objective component asks whether the force 

applied was sufficiently serious to establish a cause of action.” Brooks v. Johnson, 924 

F.3d 104, 112 (4th Cir. 2019). “[T]he subjective component . . . asks whether the officers 

acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Only the subjective requirement is at issue in this case as the district court found that Love 

established the objective prong. 

“[T]he ‘core judicial inquiry’ regarding the subjective component of an excessive 

force claim is ‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’” Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 

239 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). “Among 

unnecessary and wanton inflictions of pain are those that are totally without penological 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6680 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 3 of 5
4

justification.” King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 219 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Beasley did not punch 

Love as alleged, because video of the incident confirms Beasley’s denial. Thus, the district 

court was not required to view the facts in the light most favorable to Love because his 

“version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have 

believed him.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment to Beasley.

Love’s declaration is in direct conflict with Young’s and McCourt’s affidavits as to 

whether Young elbowed Love and Love was kicked and punched while lying on the floor. 

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Love, Core Commc’ns, Inc., 744 F.3d at 

320, the alleged use of force in the Sergeant’s office could be considered unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain. The district court, however, questioned Love’s version of events, 

noting that the alleged acts occurred in less than a minute, that Love’s injuries could have 

resulted from his fistfight with Beasley, and that Love failed to mention the alleged attack 

while at the nurse’s station. The court found that Young’s and McCourt’s acts were taken 

to restore order.1

 We conclude that, in granting summary judgment to McCourt and 

Young, the district court improvidently made credibility determinations regarding genuine 

disputes of material fact based on conflicting sworn statements. Raynor, 817 F.3d at 130. 

 1 In his declaration, Love stated that he suffered no injuries from his fistfight with 

Beasley and that he did not mention the alleged attack in the Sergeant’s office to the nurse 

because Young was present and he feared another attack. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6680 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 4 of 5
5

Accordingly, we vacate the grant of summary judgment to Young and McCourt and 

remand for further proceedings.

Thus, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

2

 We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

 2 We find no merit to Love’s contentions on appeal that an allegedly missing video 

reveals a coverup and that the alleged attacks violated prison policy. See White by White 

v. Chambliss, 112 F.3d 731, 738 (4th Cir. 1997) (violations of state law or policy not 

cognizable under § 1983). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6680 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 5 of 5