Jennifer Jasmaine v. Mr. Futrelle, No. 18-7238 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7238 JENNIFER ANN JASMAINE, f/k/a Duane Leroy Fox, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. FUTRELLE, Head of Mental Health; A. DAUGHETY, RN Lead Nurse; DR. ELIZABETH BYRD; DR. OWENS; MS. HACKETT, Head Chaplain; MR. DANIELS, Administrator, Defendants - Appellees, and M. MAGANA, RN Lead Nurse; OFFICER MILEY; SGT. JACKSON; OFFICER LINDSEY; CHARLENE RICHARDSON; MS. COLLENS, Case Manager; FINESSE G. COUCH, Director; JOHN DOES of Grievance Resolution Board Members; CLARENCE O. ELLIS; JANE DOE, Director of Mental Health, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03294-FL) Submitted: February 28, 2019 Decided: March 20, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Ann Jasmaine, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jennifer Ann Jasmaine appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint alleging deliberate indifference to her medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012), and her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Because Jasmaine no longer resides in the correctional facility that formed the basis for her RLUIPA claim, we dismiss this claim as moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186-87 (4th Cir. 2009). As to the other claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. Jasmaine v. Futrelle, No. 5:15-ct-03294-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2018). We deny Jasmaine’s motions to appoint counsel, to refile the appeal, and to suspend the proceedings. 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 PART, DISMISSED IN PART 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.
