Dwain Ferrell v. Valerie Langley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 23-6629
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6629

DWAIN C. FERRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VALERIE LANGLEY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN DOE 1-3, Medical Doctors at Utilization Review Board,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-ct-03286-M)

Submitted: February 26, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwain Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Dwain C. Ferrell, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order and

judgment dismissing in part his civil rights complaint against the John Doe Defendants

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, and granting summary

judgment to the remaining Defendant. We affirm.

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure

to state a claim, “accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true

and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor.”

Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

have reviewed Ferrell’s complaint and agree with the district court that Ferrell failed to

state a claim of deliberate indifference against the John Doe Defendants. We also “review

de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.” Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th

200, 213 (4th Cir. 2022). “Summary judgment is only 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.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). De novo review requires

this Court to view “the facts in the light most favorable to [Ferrell] to determine the

applicable questions of law and . . . draw[] all reasonable inferences from those facts in

[Ferrell’s] favor[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the record, we

conclude that the remaining Defendant was properly granted summary judgment.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6629 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm. 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