UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6327

ANTWAN DANIELS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

and 

JAMES C. WILLIS; ELDRON C. LEWIS; MELTON M. MELVIN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PRENTICE BENSTON; PHIL CORBETT, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

RODNEY HESTER; BENNY LENNON; DONNIE ALMAN, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:13-ct-03286-FL) 

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
2

Antwan Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE 

CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Antwan Daniels appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Appellees and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) action claiming a delay in treatment with respect 

to a shoulder injury and unsanitary conditions in the Bladen 

County Jail (BCJ). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in 

granting summary judgment to Appellee Benston on Daniels’ claim 

against him for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 

because there is no record evidence tending to suggest or show 

that Benston knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to 

Daniels’ health during his stay in the BCJ. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014). To the extent that 

Daniels sought to hold Benston liable in a supervisory capacity, 

the lack of any record evidence tending to suggest or show 

knowledge by Benston that any subordinate of his was engaged in 

conduct posing a pervasive and unreasonable risk of 

constitutional injury to Daniels is fatal to such a claim. 

See Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994). 

We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling granting summary 

judgment to Benston in this regard. See Bryant v. Bell Atl. 

Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002). With respect to 

the district court’s remaining rulings, we affirm for the 
4

reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Benston, 

No. 5:13-ct-03286-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2016). 

We grant Daniels’ motions to supplement informal brief, to 

submit corrective information, and to supplement mental or 

emotional injury. With respect to Daniels’ motion to submit 

letter evidence and for judgment, we grant the motion in part 

and deny it in part, granting the request to submit letter 

evidence but denying the request for judgment. We deny Daniels’ 

motions to appoint counsel, for a transcript at government 

expense, for a default judgment, to compel document production, 

for entry of default, for a permanent injunction, for discovery 

materials, to reverse the district court’s ruling, and to add a 

negligence claim. We also deny Appellees’ motions to strike 

excess briefs. 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