USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7159

TERRENCE EDWARD HAMMOCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER PHILLIP ANDOH,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

GAIL WATTS; SERGEANT ANTHONY DUPREE; OFFICER KEVIN WATSON; SERGEANT TRAVIS BOND; OFFICER HENRY WESTCOTT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00796-DLB)

Submitted: December 12, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa J. Smith, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Edward Hammock, a former Maryland pretrial detainee who was housed

at the Baltimore County Detention Center, appeals the district court’s order awarding

summary judgment to Correctional Officer Phillip Andoh on Hammock’s claim for failure

to protect under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Consistent

with our precedent at the time that it entered its order, the district court assessed

Hammock’s claim using the test for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims brought

by convicted prisoners. E.g., Younger v. Crowder,

, 382 (4th Cir. 2023);

Mays v. Sprinkle,

(4th Cir. 2021). That test has both an objective

element and a subjective element. Younger, 79 F.4th at 382. The district court ruled that

Andoh was entitled to summary judgment because Hammock had not produced evidence

creating a genuine issue of material fact on the subjective element. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a).

After the district court entered its order, we held that the Supreme Court’s decision

in Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

(2015), had abrogated our precedent requiring

the application of the subjective element of the Eighth Amendment test to a pretrial

detainee’s failure-to-protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Short v. Hartman,

__ F.4th __, __, Nos. 21-1396/1397,

, at *8-10 (4th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).

That is, we held that a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-protect claim must be evaluated under

an entirely objective standard. Id. at *10-11; see id. at *11 (“The plaintiff no longer has to

show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the detainee’s serious medical condition

and consciously disregarded the risk that their action or failure to act would result in harm.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7159 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/03/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

That showing remains sufficient, but it is no longer necessary. Now, it is sufficient that

the plaintiff show that the defendant’s action or inaction was . . . objectively unreasonable.”

(cleaned up)).

Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Short when it

rejected Hammock’s failure-to-protect claim, we vacate the district court’s order awarding

summary judgment to Andoh and remand for the district court to apply Short in the first

instance. We also deny Hammock’s motion to appoint counsel, motion for contempt of

court, and motions for default judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4