NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

No. 19-2711 _____________

ARTHUR T. CHESTER, III,

Appellant

v.

CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY; SHERIFF GARY SHAFFER; WARDEN DONALD LOMBARDO; SHERIFF LIEUTENANT CAMPBELL; SHERIFF SERGEANT PRINCE; SHERIFF SERGEANT FAIRCLOTH; SHERIFF SERGEANT CALDWELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITAKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOGU; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHARP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WEATHERBY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCHIENK, ALSO KNOWN AS SHANK; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RUCCI, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EMPLOYEES OF CAPE MAY COUNTY (NEW JERSEY) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OR OTHER AGENCY OF CAPE MAY COUNTY __________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 1-17-cv-00039 District Judge: The Honorable Robert B. Kugler ____________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 2, 2020 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 17, 2020) _____________________

OPINION* _____________________

SMITH, Chief Judge.

After his arrest for burglary and related charges, Arthur Chester was held

pending trial in the Cape May County Correctional Center. He claims the County

and several of its officers violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him

from a fellow inmate whom Chester testified against years before. Yet even with

the benefit of discovery, Chester never adduced sufficient evidence supporting his

allegations. So the District Court awarded the County and its officers summary

judgment in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See No. 17-39,

(D.N.J. July 2, 2019) (noting “[w]here the non-moving party fails to

‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that

party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,’ the

movant is entitled to summary judgment” (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

(1986))). Chester timely appealed.1 We will affirm for substantially

the same reasons set forth by the District Court.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under

. We have jurisdiction under

and exercise de novo review. See Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc.,

(3d Cir. 2018). 3