Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jerry Oaks v. Dr. Pane, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Pane and Karen Lambright in Jerry R. Oaks' Bivens action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals determined that Oaks failed to allege facts showing either defendant knew of and intentionally ignored his serious medical need. As Oaks did not show the defendants were deliberately indifferent, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling that Oaks did not establish a viable claim against either defendant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-07-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7681

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Pane and Karen Lambright in Jerry R. Oaks' Bivens action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals determined that Oaks failed to allege facts showing either defendant knew of and intentionally ignored his serious medical need. As Oaks did not show the defendants were deliberately indifferent, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling that Oaks did not establish a viable claim against either defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Jerry Oaks v. Dr. Pane, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Pane and Karen Lambright in Jerry R. Oaks' Bivens action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals determined that Oaks failed to allege facts showing either defendant knew of and intentionally ignored his serious medical need. As Oaks did not show the defendants were deliberately indifferent, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling that Oaks did not establish a viable claim against either defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7681

    JERRY R. OAKS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DR. PANE, Doctor, USP Lee County, VA; KAREN LAMBRIGHT,
    Health Services Administrator, USP Lee County VA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00041-JLK-RSB)

    Submitted:

    June 22, 2012

    Decided:

    July 10, 2012

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jerry R. Oaks, Appellant Pro Se.


    Sara Bugbee Winn, David Lew,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry
    granting

    R.

    judgment

    complaint

    Amendment.

    to

    appeals

    against

    him

    that

    the

    alleged

    indifferent

    his

    medical

    on

    district

    his

    Bivens 1

    defendants

    courts

    order

    claims.

    were

    Oaks

    deliberately

    needs

    in

    violation

    of

    reviewed

    determined

    the

    record,

    we

    find

    district

    that

    Oaks

    failed

    claim against either defendant. 2


    allege

    the

    the

    Eighth

    We affirm.

    Having
    correctly

    Oaks

    facts

    sufficient

    to

    to

    the

    establish

    Specifically,

    indicate

    that

    court
    viable

    Oaks did not

    either

    defendant

    actually knew of and intentionally ignored his serious need for


    medical care.

    See Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567,

    575 (4th Cir. 2001); Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th
    Cir. 1975).

    Accordingly, we find no error in the disposition of

    Oaks claims and affirm the judgment below.


    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED
    1

    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of


    Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
    2

    The record is ambiguous as to whether Oaks justifiably


    believed he had exhausted his administrative remedies.
    Rather
    than remand for further proceedings, we affirm on the district
    courts alternative holding.

    You might also like