Roylin Beale v. Deputy Madigan, No. 14-7394 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 23, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7394 ROYLIN JUNIUS BEALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPUTY J. P. MADIGAN; OFFICER OFFICER PEELE; OFFICER CORPREW, R. BLOW; OFFICER HARLESS; Defendants - Appellees, and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS, Defendant. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 14-9707) Submitted: August 24, 2016 Decided: August 26, 2016 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roylin Junius Beale, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roylin Junius Beale filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him while he was a pretrial detainee at the Pitt County Detention Center and that they were resulting medical needs. deliberately indifferent to his The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirmed the court’s order. See Beale v. Madigan, 589 F. App’x 107 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). On October 5, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Beale’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded to this court for further consideration in light of Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015). We have received the parties’ supplemental briefs, and this matter is ripe for disposition. In detainee Kingsley, asserting the Supreme Court held an excessive force that claim must a pretrial demonstrate “only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” whether the force was 135 S. Ct. at 2473. objectively In determining unreasonable, a court considers the evidence “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). such as the following may bear 2 on the Id. (citing Considerations reasonableness or unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting. Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473. Moreover, it is appropriate to determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable in “full context,” as a segmented view of the events “misses the forest for the trees.” Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Viewed from this legal lens, in the light most favorable to Beale to the extent supported by the record, we conclude that the officers’ actions did not amount to excessive force and that the district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants. order. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
