Antwan Daniels v. Prentice Benston, No. 16-6327 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6327 ANTWAN DANIELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JAMES C. WILLIS; ELDRON C. LEWIS; MELTON M. MELVIN, Plaintiffs, v. PRENTICE BENSTON; PHIL CORBETT, Defendants - Appellees, and RODNEY HESTER; BENNY LENNON; DONNIE ALMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03286-FL) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. August 25, 2016 Antwan Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Antwan Daniels appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action claiming a delay in treatment with respect to a shoulder injury and unsanitary conditions in the Bladen County Jail (BCJ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in granting summary judgment to Appellee Benston on Daniels’ claim against him for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because there is no record evidence tending to suggest or show that Benston knew of and disregarded an excessive Daniels’ health during his stay in the BCJ. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014). risk to See Jackson v. To the extent that Daniels sought to hold Benston liable in a supervisory capacity, the lack of any record evidence tending to suggest or show knowledge by Benston that any subordinate of his was engaged in conduct posing constitutional See Shaw v. a pervasive injury to Stroud, 13 and Daniels F.3d unreasonable is fatal 791, 799 to such (4th risk a Cir. of claim. 1994). We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment to Benston in this regard. See Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002). the district court’s remaining 3 rulings, we With respect to affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Benston, No. 5:13-ct-03286-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2016). We grant Daniels’ motions to supplement informal brief, to submit corrective emotional injury. information, and to supplement mental or With respect to Daniels’ motion to submit letter evidence and for judgment, we grant the motion in part and deny it in part, granting the request to evidence but denying the request for judgment. motions to appoint counsel, for a submit letter We deny Daniels’ transcript at government expense, for a default judgment, to compel document production, for entry of default, for a permanent injunction, for discovery materials, to reverse the district court’s ruling, and to add a negligence claim. excess briefs. We also deny Appellees’ motions to strike 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 4
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.
