UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6503
JAMES G. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
P. A. TERRANGI; DOCTOR IBERRA; CHARLYNE
BROUGHMAN-CRITZER, Correctional Officer; CATHY
COUTHER; LAUREL CORNERS; JAMES KEELING; SALLY
CASEBOLT; FREDERICK J. SCHILLING, III; MS.
DODSON; LALANI MCCANN, Doctor; M. G. HAQUE,
Doctor; HASAN OZINAL, Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VERNON
SMITH, Doctor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-869-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James G. Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne
Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach,
Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS &
MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
James G. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants McCann, Iberra and Ozinal
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Lawrence also appeals
the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims
against Defendants Schilling and Broughman-Critzer. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the
reasoning of the district court.* See Lawrence v. Terrangi, No.
CA-02-869-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2004). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
With regard to the district court’s finding that Lawrence
must demonstrate a significant injury to prevail on his claim that
Defendants Iberra and Ozinal were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs, we find that such a showing is not always
necessary. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).
Regardless, we find that Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that
Defendants’ conduct was so grossly incompetent, or shocking to the
conscience, to be considered deliberately indifferent. See
Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).
- 3 -