Court Opinion

ID: 994279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:20:34.465486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:00.253820
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRETT L. HANICK,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden
Huttonsville Correction Center;
ROBERT DAY, Correctional Officer I,
                                                                    No. 96-6285
Huttonsville Correctional Center,
Defendants-Appellants,

and

STEVE YARDLEY, Chief of Security,
Huttonsville Correctional Center,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CA-92-168-5-S)

Argued: December 3, 1997

Decided: February 25, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Rita Pauley, Special Assistant Attorney General, Charles-
ton, West Virginia, for Appellants. Christine Ann Machel, WILLIAM
E. WATSON & ASSOCIATES, Wellsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., West Virginia Attor-
ney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellee Brett Hanick brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant-appellants William Duncil and Rob-
ert Day, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent toward
Hanick's safety and thus violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
permitting Hanick to become injured in an altercation with a fellow
inmate. Following a bench trial, the district court found defendant-
appellants liable and entered judgment accordingly. After judgment
was entered in the district court, but prior to oral argument before this
court in defendants' appeal, we decided Rich v. Bruce, No. 96-7619
(4th Cir. Nov. 13, 1997), which substantially clarified the legal stan-
dard for determining when a prison official may be liable under a the-
ory of deliberate indifference for injuries sustained by one prisoner at
the hands of a fellow inmate. Because the district court did not apply
the Rich framework to Hanick's Eighth Amendment claim, we vacate
the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further pro-
ceedings consistent with the intervening Rich decision.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                     2