Skip to main content

JASMAINE v. RN (2019)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jennifer Ann JASMAINE, f/k/a Duane Leroy Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. FUTRELLE, Head of Mental Health; A. Daughety, RN Lead Nurse; Dr. Elizabeth Byrd; Dr. Owens; Ms. Hackett, Head Chaplain; Mr. Daniels, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, M. Magana, RN Lead Nurse; Officer Miley; Sgt. Jackson; Officer Lindsey; Charlene Richardson; Ms. Collens, Case Manager; Finesse G. Couch, Director; John Does of Grievance Resolution Board Members; Clarence O. Ellis; Jane Doe, Director of Mental Health, Defendants.

No. 18-7238

Decided: March 20, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Jennifer Ann Jasmaine, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Jennifer Ann Jasmaine appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint alleging deliberate indifference to her medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012), and her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Because Jasmaine no longer resides in the correctional facility that formed the basis for her RLUIPA claim, we dismiss this claim as moot. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186-87 (4th Cir. 2009). As to the other claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. Jasmaine v. Futrelle, No. 5:15-ct-03294-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2018). We deny Jasmaine's motions to appoint counsel, to refile the appeal, and to suspend the proceedings. 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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard