Case Name: David BRIGHTWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain VINCENT; William Williams, Warden; John Doe, Doctor; Maryland House of Correction-Jessup; Correctional Medical Service, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-13
Citations: 404 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 10-6273
Parties: David BRIGHTWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain VINCENT; William Williams, Warden; John Doe, Doctor; Maryland House of Correction-Jessup; Correctional Medical Service, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
David BRIGHTWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain VINCENT; William Williams, Warden; John Doe, Doctor; Maryland House of Correction-Jessup; Correctional Medical Service, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 13, 2010.
David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Mary Beth Ewen, Kramon & Graham, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Brightwell appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellees and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. This court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559, 565 (4th Cir.2006). Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Insofar as Brightwell claimed he was the victim of excessive force, we affirm on alternate grounds. We conclude Bright-well failed to show there was a genuine issue as to any material fact regarding his claim that Captain Vincent's conduct was an example of excessive conduct and not a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). With regard to Brightwell's claim that medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brightwell v. Captain Vincent, No. 8:09-cv-00816-DKC, 2010 WL 445475 (D.Md. Feb. 1, 2010). We also deny Brightwell's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.