Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06135/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sher Guleria
Appellee
Samuel Junior Jackson
Appellant
Joseph Lightsey

N.C. D.O.C. Medical Staff

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6135

SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. SHER GULERIA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

N.C. D.O.C. MEDICAL STAFF; DR. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03221-F)

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 13, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Junior Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Street Brown, 

Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6135 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Junior Jackson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

complaint alleging that prison doctors Lightsey and Guleria were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The 

district court dismissed Jackson’s complaint against the doctors 

for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We 

affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Lightsey, but 

vacated the dismissal of the claim against Guleria and remanded 

for further proceedings. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177-79 (4th Cir. 2014). On remand, the district court denied 

Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel and granted 

Guleria’s motion for summary judgment. Jackson now appeals both 

orders.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for 

appointment of counsel in a civil case for abuse of discretion, 

Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987), and the 

“court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” 

Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 407 

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have 

reviewed the record in light of these standards and the 

arguments presented in Jackson’s informal brief and have found 

no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we 

Appeal: 16-6135 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

affirm the district court’s orders. Jackson v. Guleria, No. 

5:11-ct-03221-F (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015 & Jan. 20, 2016).

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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6135 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 3