Lawrence v. Terrangi
Lawrence v. Terrangi
Opinion
James G. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants McCann, Iberra and Ozinal on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Lawrence also appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims against Defendants Schilling and Broughman-Critzer. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * See Lawrence v. Terrangi, No. CA-02-869-2 (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *845 fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
With regard to the district court’s finding that Lawrence must demonstrate a significant injury to prevail on his claim that Defendants Iberra and Ozinal were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, we find that such a showing is not always necessary. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). Regardless, we find that Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was so grossly incompetent, or shocking to the conscience, to be considered deliberately indifferent. See Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.