Estate of Peola Wingfield, dec v. Richard E. Curtis, Jr., No. 11-1424 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1424 ESTATE OF PEOLA WINGFIELD, DECEASED, By and Through His Administratrix, Edna K. Thompson, Plaintiff Appellant, v. RICHARD E. CURTIS, JR., M.D., Individually; WILLIAM RHOADES, Dr., PH.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as Psychologist and Employee of the Richmond City Jail; JAMES O. WOMACK, Captain, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; DERRICK MCGEE, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES SHERIFFS; UNKNOWN NURSES; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS; OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE RICHMOND CITY JAIL, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Employees of the Richmond City Jail, Defendants Appellees, and MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Sheriff of the City of Richmond; DR. CHANG, M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; JACK FREUND, M.D., Individually and In His Official Capacity as Medical Director for the Division of Medical Services for the Jail; DR. ZELDA JOHNSON, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SGT. CUSHIONBERRY, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; SGT. WILKINS, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; HERBERT R. ANDERSON, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; NURSE SMITH, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; NURSE MILLS, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; WARNER LIPSCOMB, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail; JERON BROOKS, Individually and In His Official Capacity as an Employee of the Richmond City Jail, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00247-JRS) Submitted: March 30, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Prince, IV, THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Brewster S. Rawls, Ramon Rodriguez, III, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: This case arises out of the death of an inmate, Peola Wingfield, in the Estate ( the naming numerous Richmond Estate ) Jail City Jail an action filed employees as ( Jail ). in the defendants, Wingfield s district court raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), as well as several state law claims, including medical malpractice, breach of contract, ordinary and gross negligence, and wrongful death. After years of litigation, including a prior appeal to this court resulting in a remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Estate timely appealed. On appeal, the Estate raises nine issues: (1) whether the district court erred in denying its motion to deem admitted the allegations in (2) whether the Richardson s expert death; whether (3) the Revised Second Amended court erred in district testimony the regarding district Complaint; excluding Wingfield s court erred in Dr. cause of denying Wingfield s estate s motion for leave to supplement an expert opinion report; (4) whether the district court erred in limiting the testimony of Dr. Rouhier, Wingfield s treating physician in the emergency room at Retreat Hospital, to matters regarding his treatment treating of Wingfield; physician (5) created whether a genuine 3 testimony issue of of Wingfield s material fact regarding the judgment cause error; determining of Wingfield s (6) that whether the Estate court to failed rendering district the death certain show summary erred in elements required to state a claim for the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006); (7) whether the district court erred in finding that Dr. Rhoades did not act with deliberate indifference, was not grossly negligent, or that his deliberate indifference did not cause Wingfield s death; (8) whether the district court erred in finding that Captain Womack had no role in treating Wingfield other than meeting with Wingfield s family and denying them a visit with Wingfield; and (9) whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Nurse McGee on the § 1983 claim. This court reviews the trial decisions for abuse of discretion. 953, 958-59 (4th Cir. 2008). court s discovery Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d After thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching its decision on the discovery-related issues. With regard to the remaining claims, we have reviewed the extensive and well-reasoned opinion of the district court, and find no reversible error. reasons stated by the Accordingly, we affirm for the district court. Estate of Peola Wingfield v. Curtis, No. 3:06-cv-00247-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2011). 4 We grant the motion to submit on briefs and 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 5
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.
