Court Opinion

ID: 9961129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:20.574658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:16.966122
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629       Doc: 10        Filed: 04/16/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6629

        DWAIN C. FERRELL,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        VALERIE LANGLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        JOHN DOE 1-3, Medical Doctors at Utilization Review Board,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-ct-03286-M)

        Submitted: February 26, 2024                                     Decided: April 16, 2024

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwain Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/16/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629      Doc: 10          Filed: 04/16/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Dwain C. Ferrell, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order and

        judgment dismissing in part his civil rights complaint against the John Doe Defendants

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, and granting summary

        judgment to the remaining Defendant. We affirm.

               We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure

        to state a claim, “accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true

        and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor.”

        Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

        have reviewed Ferrell’s complaint and agree with the district court that Ferrell failed to

        state a claim of deliberate indifference against the John Doe Defendants. We also “review

        de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.” Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th

        200, 213 (4th Cir. 2022). “Summary judgment is only appropriate ‘if the movant shows

        that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

        judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). De novo review requires

        this Court to view “the facts in the light most favorable to [Ferrell] to determine the

        applicable questions of law and . . . draw[] all reasonable inferences from those facts in

        [Ferrell’s] favor[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the record, we

        conclude that the remaining Defendant was properly granted summary judgment.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629      Doc: 10        Filed: 04/16/2024    Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                    AFFIRMED

                                                   4