Larry Williams v. Officer Robertson, No. 10-6204 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6204 LARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER ROBERTSON; WARDEN MCCALL; MAJOR BUSH; CAROLINE LINDSEY, Staff Attorney; LT. WILLIAMS; LT. EARL; CAPT. ABSTEN; CAPT. TICH; DEBRA BARNWELL; MR. JON OZMINT, Director; STEPHEN CLAYTON, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03867-MBS) Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Williams, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district magistrate court s judge order and (2006) complaint. accepting denying the relief on recommendation his 42 of U.S.C. the § 1983 Relying on Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1168 (4th Cir. 1997), Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994), and related cases, the district court granted Defendants motion for summary judgment, based on the finding that Williams alleged injuries were too de minimis to establish a claim for excessive force. Following the district court s opinion, however, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010), which abrogated our decisions in Riley and Norman. Thus, we vacate the district court s opinion and remand for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court s opinion in Wilkins. We deny Williams motions for appointment of counsel as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED In so remanding, we find no fault by the district court, which followed extant circuit precedent. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.