Arthur Chester, III v. Donald Lombardo, No. 19-2711 (3d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-2711 _____________ ARTHUR T. CHESTER, III, Appellant v. CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY; SHERIFF GARY SHAFFER; WARDEN DONALD LOMBARDO; SHERIFF LIEUTENANT CAMPBELL; SHERIFF SERGEANT PRINCE; SHERIFF SERGEANT FAIRCLOTH; SHERIFF SERGEANT CALDWELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITAKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOGU; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHARP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WEATHERBY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCHIENK, ALSO KNOWN AS SHANK; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RUCCI, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EMPLOYEES OF CAPE MAY COUNTY (NEW JERSEY) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OR OTHER AGENCY OF CAPE MAY COUNTY __________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 1-17-cv-00039 District Judge: The Honorable Robert B. Kugler ____________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 2, 2020 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 17, 2020) _____________________ OPINION* _____________________ SMITH, Chief Judge. After his arrest for burglary and related charges, Arthur Chester was held pending trial in the Cape May County Correctional Center. He claims the County and several of its officers violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from a fellow inmate whom Chester testified against years before. Yet even with the benefit of discovery, Chester never adduced sufficient evidence supporting his allegations. So the District Court awarded the County and its officers summary judgment in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See No. 17-39, 2019 WL 2710651 (D.N.J. July 2, 2019) (noting “[w]here the non-moving party fails to ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,’ the movant is entitled to summary judgment” (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))). Chester timely appealed.1 We will affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court. 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo review. See Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 909 F.3d 604, 609 (3d Cir. 2018). 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.
