Vernon Dowling v. US, No. 19-7273 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7273 VERNON BRENT DOWLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FBOP DIRECTOR SAMUELS; ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGLIGENCE, INJURY, AND DAMAGES AND HEALTH SERVICES/CORPORATE CONTRACT, (full names are unknown at this time); OFFICER WALKER; OFFICER PLATTS; LT. MERRILL; WARDEN A. MANSUKHANI; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FBOP; DIRECTORS SAMUELS, (FBOP); FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; HEALTH SERVICES; WARDEN MANSUKHANI; MS. WILLIAMS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:16-cv-03468-DCN) Submitted: December 10, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Decided: January 5, 2021 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Brent Dowling, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Vernon B. Dowling appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dowling v. United States, No. 0:16-cv-03468-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2018 & June 18, 2019). We also deny Dowling’s pending motions to appoint counsel, to seal a motion for appointment of counsel, for a transcript at government expense, to stay the appeal, to provide the Defendants’ insurance information, and to withdraw his consent to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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 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.