Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
24-7109•Christopher Allen Dontell v. Susan Safford
24-7109Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.12.2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7109
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN DONTELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN SAFFORD; JONI CURCIO, Sgt; CORPORAL GRAY; CORPORAL
GAUSE; CORPORAL SHOVER; OFFICER LEWIS, Correctional Officer;
OFFICER HOLLYWOOD, Correctional Officer; OFFICER RAY, Correctional
Officer; OFFICER DAVIS, Correctional Officer; OFFICER DAHL, Correctional
Officer; OFFICER WORTHAM, Correctional Officer; OFFICER CYR,
Correctional Officer; OFFICER BROWNING, Correctional Officer; OFFICER
SANDERS; OFFICER DILLON, Correctional Officer; F. SMALLS; CORPORAL
VERMEER; OFFICER STEBLINSKI, Correctional Officer; OFFICER SWEET,
Correctional Officer; CORPORAL COLLIER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:22-cv-01641-BHH)
Submitted: November 12, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Christopher Allen Dontell, Appellant Pro Se. J.W. Nelson Chandler, James Matthew
Johnson, CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Allen Dontell appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment for Appellees on
Dontell’s deliberate indifference, failure to protect, retaliation, and equal protection claims
asserted in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Dontell v. Safford, No.
9:22-cv-01641-BHH (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2024). 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.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.