Adrin Rome v. Officer Casper , 709 F. App'x 237 ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7130
ADRIN ROME,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER CASPER; OFFICER BUD; DR. RHODES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00509-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: January 11, 2018 Decided: January 25, 2018
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrin Kentral Rome, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrin Kentral Rome appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The district court
determined that the amended complaint did not state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for an Eighth Amendment violation in connection with the conditions of Rome’s
confinement. Upon de novo review of the district court’s dismissal decision we conclude
that the district court did not reversibly err in dismissing the amended complaint. See
Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2015). Rome did not state a plausible claim
for an Eighth Amendment violation because he failed to present allegations sufficient to
show any named Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his health or safety. See id. at
176 (“Dismissal [under § 1915A for failure to state a claim] is proper only if the plaintiff
has failed to present factual allegations that state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 349 F.3d 765, 770
(4th Cir. 2003) (addressing elements of claim for Eighth Amendment violation); see also
United States v. Flores-Granados, 783 F.3d 487, 491 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting this court may
affirm on any ground appearing in the record, including theories not relied on or rejected
by district court).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Rome’s motion to
appoint counsel and 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