Joyner v. Edgecombe Cnty Jail ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    FREDERICK JOYNER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    EDGECOMBE COUNTY JAIL; HERITAGE
    HOSPITAL, Emergency Room;
    No. 99-6784
    EDGECOMBE COUNTY DISTRICT
    ATTORNEY, Assistant DA; NORTH
    CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
    INCORPORATED; TARBORO CLINIC, Ear,
    Eye, Nose Section,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
    (CA-99-26-5-H)
    Submitted: January 11, 2000
    Decided: February 10, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
    and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Frederick Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick D. Joyner appeals the district court's orders dismissing
    his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 1999) action as frivolous. Find-
    ing no reversible error, we affirm.
    Under § 1915A, the district court may dismiss the complaint upon
    a finding that it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
    which relief may be granted." See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.
    1999). We review a district court's legal conclusions de novo. See,
    e.g., United States v. McManus, 
    23 F.3d 878
    , 882 (4th Cir. 1994);
    United States v. Rusher, 
    966 F.2d 868
    , 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
    Joyner raises only one issue on appeal; he contends that the district
    court erred in dismissing his claim that prison officials failed to pro-
    tect him from an attack by other inmates. When given an opportunity
    to particularize his complaint, Joyner named "Toby," a prison deputy,
    as the person who had actual knowledge of the potential danger to
    Joyner's safety, yet failed to take action to protect him. We find, how-
    ever, that even accepting the facts as alleged by Joyner as true, they
    fail to support a legal conclusion that Toby was deliberately indiffer-
    ent to a specific known risk of harm to Joyner. See Farmer v.
    Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994); Pressly v. Hutto, 
    816 F.2d 977
    ,
    979 (4th Cir. 1987); see also Grayson v. Peed , 
    195 F.3d 692
    , 695-97
    (4th Cir. 1999) (applying deliberate indifference standard to pretrial
    detainee).
    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
    we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
    sional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2