Jeffrey Corporal v. H. Carr ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6624 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6624
JEFFREY CORPORAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
H. CARR; WARDEN WEBER; COMMISSIONER HILL; SECRETARY GREEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-6750
JEFFREY CORPORAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARRY CARR; WARDEN WEBER; COMMISSIONER HILL; SECRETARY
OFFICER GREEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00534-DKC)
Submitted: October 24, 2022 Decided: December 20, 2022
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6624 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
No. 21-6624, affirmed; No. 21-6750, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6624 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In No. 21-6624, Jeffrey Corporal appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendants, denying Corporal’s partial motion for summary
judgment, and denying relief on Corporal’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. * Corporal alleged
that Defendant Harry Carr used excessive force against him by unjustifiably spraying him
with pepper spray and that all Defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement.
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 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). “We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for
summary judgment, construing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of
the nonmoving party.” Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 346, 353 (4th
Cir. 2018). Corporal’s claims are governed by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. See Brooks v. Johnson, 924 F.3d 104, 112 (4th Cir.
2019) (excessive force); Porter v. Clarke, 923 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2019) (conditions of
confinement); see also Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348, 356 n.11 (4th Cir. 2019)
(observing that “[t]he Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishments
*
It appears that Corporal filed appeal No. 21-6750 in anticipation that the district
court would deny his motion to reopen the time period to file an appeal of the court’s
summary judgment order. However, the court granted that motion and deemed timely
Corporal’s notice of appeal in No. 21-6624. Accordingly, Corporal’s appeal from the
denial of summary judgment is properly before this court in No. 21-6624, and we will
therefore dismiss as moot No. 21-6750.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6624 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment”). Eighth Amendment
claims “involve[] both an objective and a subjective component” that an inmate must
satisfy in order to merit relief. Brooks, 924 F.3d at 112; see Porter, 923 F.3d at 355.
We have reviewed the record in light of these standards and find no reversible error
in the district court’s determination that the relevant Defendants were entitled to summary
judgment on each claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Corporal v.
Carr, No. 8:20-cv-00534-DKC (D. Md. filed Feb. 5 & entered Feb. 8, 2021).
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.
No. 21-6624, AFFIRMED;
No. 21-6750, DISMISSED.
4