Kelvin Canada v. Lieutenant Rountree

Fourth Circuit

Kelvin Canada v. Lieutenant Rountree

650 F. App'x 839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2016

Docket15-7591

StatusUnpublished

This text of 650 F. App'x 839 (Kelvin Canada v. Lieutenant Rountree) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelvin Canada v. Lieutenant Rountree, 650 F. App'x 839 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*840 PER CURIAM:

Kelvin A. Canada, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The district court granted summary judgment to all the Defendants, with the exception of Nurse L. O’Neal, who was never located and therefore dismissed without prejudice. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error regarding the grant of summary judgment to Nurse M. Woodruff. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, for this portion of the district court’s order. See Canada v. Rountree, No. 2:13-cv-00013-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2015).

With regard to the remaining Defendants, except , for L. O’Neal, we vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment and remand for review of the videotape evidence sought by Plaintiff Kelvin Canada. Given the nature of Canada’s excessive force claim, we are unable to conduct effective appellate review on the present record." Accordingly, we remand with instructions that Canada’s motion for discovery of videotape evidence be granted, so that the district court may consider the case with all relevant evidence before it. See McMillian v. Wake Cty. Sheriffs Dep’t, 399 Fed.Appx. 824, 829 (4th Cir. 2010) (remanding for consideration of videotape .evidence in excessive force case against prison officials).

Canada also has filed motions with this court for discovery, to schedule oral argument, and for prima facie evidence. Those motions are denied. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*840 PER CURIAM:

Kelvin A. Canada, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The district court granted summary judgment to all the Defendants, with the exception of Nurse L. O’Neal, who was never located and therefore dismissed without prejudice. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error regarding the grant of summary judgment to Nurse M. Woodruff. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, for this portion of the district court’s order. See Canada v. Rountree, No. 2:13-cv-00013-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2015).

With regard to the remaining Defendants, except , for L. O’Neal, we vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment and remand for review of the videotape evidence sought by Plaintiff Kelvin Canada. Given the nature of Canada’s excessive force claim, we are unable to conduct effective appellate review on the present record." Accordingly, we remand with instructions that Canada’s motion for discovery of videotape evidence be granted, so that the district court may consider the case with all relevant evidence before it. See McMillian v. Wake Cty. Sheriffs Dep’t, 399 Fed.Appx. 824, 829 (4th Cir. 2010) (remanding for consideration of videotape .evidence in excessive force case against prison officials).

Canada also has filed motions with this court for discovery, to schedule oral argument, and for prima facie evidence. Those motions are denied. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F. App'x 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelvin-canada-v-lieutenant-rountree-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack