Kelvin A. Canada v. Lieutenant Rountree

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7591
KELVIN A. CANADA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT ROUNTREE; WILLIAM C. LANE, Lieutenant; CAPTAIN
WHITEHEAD; J. MAYO, Officer; OFFICER GOODRICH; OFFICER
BAINES; OFFICER ASKEW; OFFICER ADAMS; M. WOODRUFF, Nurse; L.
O’NEAL, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-00013-HCM-TEM)
Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Kelvin A. Canada, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth Martin
Muldowney, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin A. Canada, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need. The district court granted summary
judgment to all the Defendants, with the exception of Nurse L.
O’Neal, who was never located and therefore dismissed without
prejudice. We review the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, viewing the facts and the reasonable
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir.
2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error
regarding the grant of summary judgment to Nurse M. Woodruff.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court, for this portion of the district court’s order. See
Canada v. Rountree, No. 2:13-cv-00013-HCM-TEM (E.D. Va. Sept.
21, 2015).
With regard to the remaining Defendants, except for L.
O’Neal, we vacate the district court’s order granting summary
judgment and remand for review of the videotape evidence sought
by Plaintiff Kelvin Canada. Given the nature of Canada’s
excessive force claim, we are unable to conduct effective
appellate review on the present record. Accordingly, we remand
with instructions that Canada’s motion for discovery of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
videotape evidence be granted, so that the district court may
consider the case with all relevant evidence before it. See
McMillian v. Wake Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 399 F. App’x 824, 829
(4th Cir. 2010) (remanding for consideration of videotape
evidence in excessive force case against prison officials).
Canada also has filed motions with this court for
discovery, to schedule oral argument, and for prima facie
evidence. Those motions are denied. 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 IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --