Court Opinion

ID: 9386574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 21:00:26.517759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.519095
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7048      Doc: 18         Filed: 04/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7048

        JEAN GERMAIN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILLIAM BEEMAN, RN; HOWARD COOK, Dr.; JOHN DOE, Dr.; JANE DOE, RN;
        KELLY NATALE, RN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02279-SAG)

        Submitted: March 15, 2023                                         Decided: April 11, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS,
        O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland; Christina Nicole
        Billiet, Michelle Lynn Davidson Dian, WARANCH & BROWN, LLC, Lutherville,
        Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7048      Doc: 18          Filed: 04/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jean Germain appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the

        Defendants and dismissing his civil rights complaint. Germain contends that the court

        erred by not permitting further discovery and by granting summary judgment to Kelly

        Natale on his claim that she was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We affirm.

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Germain’s

        motion for further discovery.       See Gordon v. CIGNA Corp., 890 F.3d 463, 478

        (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review). We have reviewed de novo the district court’s

        order granting summary judgment and conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material

        fact about Germain’s claim against Natale. See Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 213

        (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 303 (2022) (stating standard of review).

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                      2