Frederick Joyner v. Edgecombe County Jail

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK JOYNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EDGECOMBE COUNTY JAIL; HERITAGE
HOSPITAL, Emergency Room;
No. 99-6784
EDGECOMBE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, Assistant DA; NORTH
CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; TARBORO CLINIC, Ear,
Eye, Nose Section,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-99-26-5-H)
Submitted: January 11, 2000
Decided: February 10, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
Frederick Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Frederick D. Joyner appeals the district court's orders dismissing
his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action as frivolous. Find-
ing no reversible error, we affirm.
Under § 1915A, the district court may dismiss the complaint upon
a finding that it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted." See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.
1999). We review a district court's legal conclusions de novo. See,
e.g., United States v. McManus, 23 F.3d 878, 882 (4th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
Joyner raises only one issue on appeal; he contends that the district
court erred in dismissing his claim that prison officials failed to pro-
tect him from an attack by other inmates. When given an opportunity
to particularize his complaint, Joyner named "Toby," a prison deputy,
as the person who had actual knowledge of the potential danger to
Joyner's safety, yet failed to take action to protect him. We find, how-
ever, that even accepting the facts as alleged by Joyner as true, they
fail to support a legal conclusion that Toby was deliberately indiffer-
ent to a specific known risk of harm to Joyner. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977,
979 (4th Cir. 1987); see also Grayson v. Peed , 195 F.3d 692, 695-97
(4th Cir. 1999) (applying deliberate indifference standard to pretrial
detainee).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2

-- 2 of 2 --