UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6300

JEAN BERNARD GERMAIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONICA METHENY, RN; CORIZON CORPORATION; R.N. DAWN HAWK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-01882-JFM)

Submitted: August 23, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa J. Russell, Larry 

Michael Waranch, WARANCH & BROWN, LLC, Lutherville, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jean Bernard Germain appeals the district court’s 

orders granting summary judgment to the Appellees, dismissing 

his civil rights complaint and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order 

granting summary judgment. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 

607 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment shall be granted when 

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). “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) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A district court should grant summary judgment unless 

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party 

on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 249 (1986). An otherwise properly supported motion 

for summary judgment will not be defeated by the existence of 

any factual dispute; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might 

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will 

properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. at 248. 

“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does 
3

a mere scintilla of evidence in support of” the nonmoving 

party’s case. Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 

645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate 

medical care, an inmate must allege acts or omissions 

sufficiently harmful to constitute deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 

(1976). First, he must objectively show that the deprivation 

suffered or injury inflicted was “sufficiently serious.” 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A sufficiently 

serious medical need is one that requires medical treatment. 

Brice v. Virginia Beach Corr. Cntr., 58 F.3d 101, 104 (4th Cir. 

1995). Then, the inmate must show that the defendant acted with 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. Farmer, 

511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent 

to a serious medical need if he knows of and disregards “an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Odom v. South 

Carolina DOC, 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The prison official must be aware of 

facts from which an inference is derived that a serious risk of 

harm exists. Even if the official is aware of such facts, the 

official can avoid liability by responding reasonably to the 

risk, “even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
4

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Germain 

failed to show that there was a genuine dispute as to a material 

fact, particularly that the Defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical need. Accordingly, we 

affirm. 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