Court Opinion

ID: 9915206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 21:00:52.296285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:22.463671
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159      Doc: 19        Filed: 01/03/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7159

        TERRENCE EDWARD HAMMOCK,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICER PHILLIP ANDOH,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        GAIL WATTS; SERGEANT ANTHONY DUPREE; OFFICER KEVIN
        WATSON; SERGEANT TRAVIS BOND; OFFICER HENRY WESTCOTT,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00796-DLB)

        Submitted: December 12, 2023                                  Decided: January 3, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159      Doc: 19         Filed: 01/03/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa J. Smith, BALTIMORE
        COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159        Doc: 19         Filed: 01/03/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                 Terrence Edward Hammock, a former Maryland pretrial detainee who was housed

        at the Baltimore County Detention Center, appeals the district court’s order awarding

        summary judgment to Correctional Officer Phillip Andoh on Hammock’s claim for failure

        to protect under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Consistent

        with our precedent at the time that it entered its order, the district court assessed

        Hammock’s claim using the test for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims brought

        by convicted prisoners. E.g., Younger v. Crowder, 79 F.4th 373, 382 (4th Cir. 2023);

        Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 300 (4th Cir. 2021).         That test has both an objective

        element and a subjective element. Younger, 79 F.4th at 382. The district court ruled that

        Andoh was entitled to summary judgment because Hammock had not produced evidence

        creating a genuine issue of material fact on the subjective element. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

        56(a).

                 After the district court entered its order, we held that the Supreme Court’s decision

        in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), had abrogated our precedent requiring

        the application of the subjective element of the Eighth Amendment test to a pretrial

        detainee’s failure-to-protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Short v. Hartman,

        __ F.4th __, __, Nos. 21-1396/1397, 2023 WL 8488148, at *8-10 (4th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).

        That is, we held that a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-protect claim must be evaluated under

        an entirely objective standard. Id. at *10-11; see id. at *11 (“The plaintiff no longer has to

        show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the detainee’s serious medical condition

        and consciously disregarded the risk that their action or failure to act would result in harm.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159       Doc: 19         Filed: 01/03/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

        That showing remains sufficient, but it is no longer necessary. Now, it is sufficient that

        the plaintiff show that the defendant’s action or inaction was . . . objectively unreasonable.”

        (cleaned up)).

               Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Short when it

        rejected Hammock’s failure-to-protect claim, we vacate the district court’s order awarding

        summary judgment to Andoh and remand for the district court to apply Short in the first

        instance. We also deny Hammock’s motion to appoint counsel, motion for contempt of

        court, and motions for default judgment. 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.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      4