UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6865
DANIEL PROFIT DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CHATMAN, in her individual and
official capacity as Physician's Assistant; DEE, in her
individual and official capacity as Physician’s Assistant;
DOCTOR PHILLIPS, in his individual and official capacity as
Physician; KERRY MODERN, in his individual and official
capacity as Counselor; X-RAY TECHNICIAN, in his individual
and official capacity as X-Ray Technician,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03130-FL)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Profit Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant
United States Attorney, Tobin Webb Lathan, Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Profit Davis, a federal inmate, appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United
States and dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680
(2006). We review a district court’s grant of a motion for
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court. Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958 (4th Cir.
2008). Summary judgment shall be granted “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). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate when it is
clear that no genuine issue of material fact remains unresolved
and an inquiry into the facts is unnecessary to clarify the
application of the law. Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of
Rising Sun, 6 F.3d 211, 214 (4th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. United States,
No. 5:08-ct-03130-FL (E.D.N.C. May 18, 2010). 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
3