UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6135
SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. SHER GULERIA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
N.C. D.O.C. MEDICAL STAFF; DR. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03221-F)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 13, 2016
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Junior Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Street Brown,
Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Junior Jackson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint alleging that prison doctors Lightsey and Guleria were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The
district court dismissed Jackson’s complaint against the doctors
for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We
affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Lightsey, but
vacated the dismissal of the claim against Guleria and remanded
for further proceedings. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
177-79 (4th Cir. 2014). On remand, the district court denied
Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel and granted
Guleria’s motion for summary judgment. Jackson now appeals both
orders.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for
appointment of counsel in a civil case for abuse of discretion,
Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987), and the
“court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,”
Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 407
(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have
reviewed the record in light of these standards and the
arguments presented in Jackson’s informal brief and have found
no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we
2
affirm the district court’s orders. Jackson v. Guleria, No.
5:11-ct-03221-F (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2015 & Jan. 20, 2016).
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
3