Larry Williams v. Officer Robertson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6204
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ROBERTSON; WARDEN MCCALL; MAJOR BUSH; CAROLINE
LINDSEY, Staff Attorney; LT. WILLIAMS; LT. EARL; CAPT.
ABSTEN; CAPT. TICH; DEBRA BARNWELL; MR. JON OZMINT,
Director; STEPHEN CLAYTON, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:08-cv-03867-MBS)
Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Williams, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) complaint. Relying on Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159,
1168 (4th Cir. 1997), Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir.
1994), and related cases, the district court granted Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, based on the finding that Williams’
alleged injuries were too de minimis to establish a claim for
excessive force. Following the district court’s opinion,
however, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wilkins v.
Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010), which abrogated our decisions in
Riley and Norman. Thus, we vacate the district court’s opinion
and remand for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s
opinion in Wilkins.∗
VACATED AND REMANDED
We deny Williams’ motions for appointment
of counsel as moot and 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.
∗ In so remanding, we find no fault by the district court,
which followed extant circuit precedent.

-- 2 of 2 --