Bobby Grady v. Fane Greenfield, No. 16-6898 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6898 BOBBY RAY GRADY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. FANE GREENFIELD; OFFICER MARTINEZ; OFFICER WALLS; OFFICER BEAMON; OFFICER PATTERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03005-D) Submitted: November 14, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and DUNCAN November 22, 2016 and WYNN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Camilla Frances DeBoard, Kenneth Bruce Rotenstreich, TEAGUE, ROTENSTREICH, STANALAND, FOX & HOLT, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Ray Grady appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Grady’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. In the only issue raised on appeal, Grady asserts that the district court overlooked one of his claims. While we agree that the district court did not address this claim, Grady has presented no material issue of disputed fact preventing summary judgment on this claim. Accordingly, we affirm. Specifically, Grady asserts that Defendant Greenfield was deliberately indifferent to his serious mental illness and that Greenfield violated state law in his treatment of Grady and placed Grady in isolation with conditions of confinement that exacerbated his condition. Summary judgment is appropriate if “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). To establish a claim of deliberate indifference to a medical need, Grady must show that the need is both apparent and serious. Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). Grady must then demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants. standard. Deliberate Id. at 695-96. indifference is a very high Moreover, “an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care” does not satisfy the standard, 2 and thus mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition is insufficient. 105-06 (1976). Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, Likewise, disagreements between an inmate and a physician over the inmate’s proper medical care do not state a claim for deliberate circumstances. 1985). indifference absent exceptional Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. Instead, officials must evince a wholly inappropriate response to a “serious” medical condition or act intentionally to delay or deny the prisoner access to adequate medical care. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. Here, it is clear that Grady has failed to show that Greenfield was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Greenfield was a supervisory official and not medical personnel. Moreover, a violation of state law does not satisfy the requirements for stating a § 1983 claim. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 prison U.S. 183, 194 (1984). Further, entitled to rely on medical opinions. officials are See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016). Grady does not allege that Greenfield ignored the opinions of the medical staff, and viewed in the light most favorable to Grady, the record does not otherwise support the conclusion that Greenfield needs. was Grady deliberately was treated indifferent at the to Grady’s Detention Center, medical and his disagreement with his medical care is insufficient to state a 3 claim against Finally, Grady medical cannot staff, show must that he less against brought his Greenfield. concerns to Greenfield’s attention, and none of the grievances in the record cover this claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
