Opinion ID: 1028103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment in Favor of Officer Bradley

Text: We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 354 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment “should be rendered if 5 the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Beverley, 404 F.3d 243, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005). We conclude the district court accorded insufficient weight to the administrative finding that proper procedures called for Weatherholt to be asked to identify inmates involved in the theft from him by looking at photos. While it is correct, as noted by the court, that “failure to follow prison rules or regulations does not, without more, give rise to a constitutional violation,” Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996), it does not appear that the court adequately considered the rationale for the prison policy in question. Presumably, the administrative rule violated in this case was adopted out of recognition that in-person identification of inmates involved in an incident inherently creates a risk of retaliation. Accordingly, while we do not hold that Bradley’s failure to follow proper procedures conclusively establishes her deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious injury, 6 we believe that resolution of the claim on the present record was simply premature. We make this finding recognizing that Bradley, in her affidavit attached to her motion for summary judgment, explains that she was not aware of any risk to Weatherholt’s safety before taking him to identify the perpetrators he alleged forcibly entered his cell, held him against his will, and robbed him of his belongings. But Bradley’s asserted lack of awareness of any risk of harm to Weatherholt from an in-person identification of the inmates involved in the incident is not dispositive. Given the violent nature of the incident Weatherholt described, the present record could permit a factfinder to rationally conclude that Bradley ignored an obvious risk of significant harm to Weatherholt of which a reasonable prison official would have been aware. Summary judgment in favor of Bradley, at least at this stage of the proceedings, was accordingly inappropriate. For the reasons stated, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. While Weatherholt’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied, we leave the question of appointment of counsel on remand to the sound discretion of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 7 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.