Robert Landrum v. David Bowens, No. 09-7910 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7910 ROBERT L. LANDRUM, a/k/a Robert Levern Landrum, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DR. DAVID BOWENS, DMD, SCDC; MS. CARLA DAVIS, MAT, Allendale C.I.; DR. DOUGLAS MCPHERSON, DMD, SCDC, Defendants Appellants, and GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden Allendale Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:08-cv-02993-CMC) Submitted: March 26, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Landrum, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C. TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert L. Landrum, a South Carolina inmate, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), alleging in part that David Bowens, Carla Davis, and Douglas McPherson ( Appellants ), all responsible for the dental care of inmates at the Allendale Correctional Institution, violated Landrum s Eighth Amendment right to reasonable medical care by failing to provide him with proper dental treatment. Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity, and denied the motion. reasons Appellants noted an interlocutory appeal. that follow, we dismiss the appeal for For the lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Appellants argue in their informal brief only that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity. Appellants assert that they have not violated Landrum s constitutional rights, claiming that [t]o the extent that [Landrum] is complaining that [South Carolina Department of Corrections] staff did not comply with his wish to have all of his teeth extracted, he has not alleged a constitutional violation because [he] is not entitled to the dental treatment of his choice, but only to reasonable care. state that they treated Landrum 3 at eight Appellants further separate dental appointments between July 2006 and June 2008, that they made pain medication available to him, and that Landrum is responsible for delays to his treatment by failing to appear for dental appointments. Appellants conclude that because they did not violate Landrum s constitutional rights, there is no need to consider whether that right was clearly established, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity. Although neither Appellants nor Landrum addresses the matter on appeal, we must first evaluate the threshold issue of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. It is well-settled that while interlocutory orders generally are not appealable, a district court s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable § 1291 final decision notwithstanding Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 the within absence U.S. 511, the of 530 meaning a of final (1985). 28 U.S.C. judgment. However, a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). Johnson v. Jones, Thus, this court possesses no jurisdiction over a claim that a plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff's version of the facts actually occurred, but does have jurisdiction over a 4 claim that there was no violation of clearly established law accepting the facts as the district court viewed them. Culosi v. Bullock, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 610625, at *4 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). Here, in denying Appellants motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact resolution of existed those regarding issues of Landrum s fact would treatment, determine Landrum s Eighth Amendment right had been violated. and whether Although the district court did make a legal determination that there was a clearly established right to reasonable medical care, Appellants do not challenge that determination, but instead the fact-related issues regarding whether certain actions occurred that could amount to a constitutional violation. See Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 237 (4th Cir. 2008) ( Because the district court denied [summary judgment] by virtue of conflicting factual inferences, . . . there is no legal issue on appeal on which we could base jurisdiction. ). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed. We deny dispense Landrum s with oral motion for argument appointment because 5 the of counsel. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 6
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.
