Jean Germain v. Bobby Shearin, No. 14-6144 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6144 JEAN BERNARD GERMAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOBBY SHEARIN; JAMES HOLWAGER; LIEUTENANT HARBAUGH; SERGEANT SMITH; BRUCE A. LILLER; SERGEANT MCALPINE; LAURA MOULDEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01613-JFM) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014 Before GREGORY, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jean Bernard Germain, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jean Bernard Germain appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to Sergeant Smith. We review de novo a district court s grant of summary judgment, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We affirm. A viable claim that a prison official did not provide adequate medical care has an objective and subjective component. Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must show that the official acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Id. A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity (internal quotation for marks a doctor s omitted). An attention. Id., official with acts deliberate indifference when he knows of and disregards the risk posed by the serious medical need. deliberate indifference. aspects. knowledge It of must the be risk Id. Mere negligence is not Deliberate indifference has two shown of Id. that harm 2 to the the officer inmate had and actual that the officer must have recognized that his actions were insufficient to mitigate the risk of harm. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the record does not show that there was a genuine dispute on the issue of whether Sergeant Smith recognized that his actions were insufficient to mitigate the risk of order. legal before harm. 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.
