CHESTER III v. CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

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

No. 19-2711

Decided: March 17, 2020

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges Stuart M. Niemtzow, Esq., Havertown, PA, for Plaintiff - Appellant Richard L. Goldstein, Esq., Walter F. Kawalec, III, Esq., Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Mt. Laurel, NJ, for Defendant - Appellee

OPINION *

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 Chester v. Cape May County, No. 17-39, 2019 WL 2710651 (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 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986))). Chester timely appealed.¹ We will affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo review. See Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 909 F.3d 604, 609 (3d Cir. 2018).

SMITH, Chief Judge.