Rosenbaum v. Siha ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD M. ROSENBAUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VICTOR SIHA; GROVER RIVENBARK;
BRENDA BARRETT; JOHN T. EDWARDS;
No. 99-6697
RONALD WHITENER; VERNON LONDON;
BRENDA FUTTEN; JOSEPH DINCHER;
MICHAEL MERRILL, individually;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, jointly
and severally,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CA-98-6-1-6)
Submitted: November 30, 1999
Decided: December 20, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Hugh M. Davis, Jr., Detroit, Michigan; Bob Bastress, Morgantown,
West Virginia, for Appellant. David E. Godwin, United States Attor-
ney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Richard Rosenbaum, a former inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia appeals the district court's
order granting summary judgment to the Respondents in Rosen-
baum's civil action concerning his treatment while incarcerated.
Rosenbaum alleges that the Respondents were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs; violated his Fifth Amendment Due Pro-
cess rights by placing him in segregation; violated his First, Fifth, and
Sixth Amendment rights by preventing him from attending his re-
sentencing hearing and by mishandling his mail; retaliated against
him for exercising his First Amendment rights; violated his Fourth
Amendment rights by preventing him from leaving on an approved
furlough; conspired to deny him his constitutional rights; and are lia-
ble under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for providing negli-
gent medical care.
We have reviewed the record and find that there are no material
issues of fact in dispute and that the Respondents are entitled to judg-
ment as a matter of law. See 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1346(b) (West 1993 &
Supp. 1999) (describing elements for FTCA claim); Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (addressing qualified immunity
defense); Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir.
1996) (providing standard for civil conspiracy claims); Adams v. Rice,
40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994) (addressing retaliation claims);
Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1384 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that
claim of denial of access to the courts requires showing of actual
injury); Berrier v. Allen, 951 F.2d 622, 624-25 (4th Cir. 1991)
2
(addressing claims based upon placement in segregation); Miltier v.
Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990) (providing standards for
deliberate indifference claims); White v. White , 886 F.2d 721, 723
(4th Cir. 1989) (addressing constitutional claims based upon denial of
access to courts arising from mishandling of prisoner mail);* Freder-
icks v. Huggins, 711 F.2d 31, 33 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding that jail
authorities have legitimate security concern in limiting exposure to
drugs in facility).
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the order of the district
court. We deny Rosenbaum's motion to supplement the record on
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*We also agree with the district court that Rosenbaum did not provide
a factual basis for his conclusory allegations as to the opening of his
legal mail. Although Rosenbaum's appellate brief now alleges more spe-
cific information about these letters, we may not consider that informa-
tion because it was not presented to the district court. See Westfarm
Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 66
F.3d 669, 682 n.7 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Moreover, his testimony was not
before the district court on Westfarm's motion for summary judgment,
and it cannot be used now to manufacture a genuine issue of material
fact").
3