Jovan Watkins v. Secretary of the MD Dept, No. 18-7063 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7063 JOVAN WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; MCI-J D.O.C. STAFF; STEPHEN T. MOYER, Secretary DPSCS; TIKAYE PARKER; CAPTAIN LILLY; LT. BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-01153-JKB) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 20, 2019 Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jovan Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jovan Watkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that Watkins failed to establish the subjective component of his deliberate indifference claim. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. * Watkins v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:17-cv-01153-JKB (D. Md. filed Aug. 9, 2018 & entered Aug. 10, 2018). We also deny Watkins’ pending motions for the appointment of counsel, for a transcript at government expense, and to enforce a fee order. 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 * In his informal brief, Watkins does not challenge the district court’s rejection of his claim against Defendant Moyer, so Watkins has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson, 775 F.3d at 177 (noting importance of Rule 34(b)). 2

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.