Michael Cook v. Robert Jones , 606 F. App'x 131 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6168
MICHAEL O. COOK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT JONES, Warden; SGT. CASEY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
G. SOLOMON; ROBERT C. LEWIS; S. COBBS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief
District Judge. (5:12-ct-03219-D)
Submitted: June 22, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael O. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Jodi Harrison, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. Cook appeals the district court’s judgment
granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his civil
rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We
review de novo an order granting summary judgment. Wilkins v.
Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment
is appropriate if a party “shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
To establish a claim under the Eight Amendment that prison
officials did not protect him from harm caused by other inmates,
Cook must show that the prison officials possessed “a sufficiently
culpable state of mind,” including deliberate indifference to
inmate health or safety. Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 346-
47 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). To meet
the high standard of deliberate indifference, Cook must submit
evidence “suggesting that the prison official had actual knowledge
of an excessive risk” to his health or safety. Id. at 347. The
prison official must be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that there was a substantial risk of harm to Cook,
and “must also draw the inference.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Constructive notice is insufficient to show actual
knowledge, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840-42 (1994), nor is
it enough that the prison official should have recognized a
2
substantial risk, Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294,
303 (4th Cir. 2004). A showing that the prison official was merely
negligent also falls short of establishing deliberate
indifference. Danser, 772 F.3d at 347.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Cook failed to submit evidence showing a genuine dispute regarding
whether either of the Defendants had actual knowledge that other
inmates posed an excessive risk to Cook’s safety. We also conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying Cook’s
motion for appointment of counsel. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,
1153 (4th Cir. 1978). Finally, Cook fails to show that he was
denied any discoverable evidence or that the court abused its
discretion denying his discovery requests. See Kolon Indus. Inc.
v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 172 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014) (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
3