Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Benjamin Joyner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ken Mckellar, Warden, K.c.i.; Gerald S. Gaskin, Chief Ofsecurity, Kirkland Correctional Institution,defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 840 F.2d 11Unpublished Disposition
Submitted: Dec. 14, 1987.Decided: Feb. 10, 1988
Benjamin Joyner, appellant pro se.
Robert E. Peterson, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Gerald Frederick Smith, South Carolina Department of Corrections, for appellees.
Before K.K. HALL, SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Joyner, a South Carolina inmate, brought this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that on three occasions the defendants placed him in a cell with another inmate despite threats this inmate made on his life and an order of the trial court that they should not be confined in the same prison. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants because Joyner offered nothing factual to support his allegation of a deliberate failure to protect him. See White v. Boyle, 538 F.2d 1077 (4th Cir.1976).
We agree with the district court that a grant of summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate. We affirm its judgment on the ground that Joyner failed to show beyond mere conclusory allegations that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a specific known risk of harm posed by the other inmate. See Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977 (4th Cir.1987). See also Ruefly v. Landon, 825 F.2d 792 (4th Cir.1987). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED