Roseboro v. Garrison

Decision Date15 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 75--1082,75--1082
Citation528 F.2d 309
PartiesRobert Louis ROSEBORO, Appellant, v. Sam P. GARRISON, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Central Prison, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen., N.C. and (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., N.C., on brief) for appellee.

Roy T. Stuckey, Columbia, S.C. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.

Before RUSSELL, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Louis Roseboro, an inmate of the Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina, instituted this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and upon this appeal Roseboro contends that summary disposition of his case was improper.

Three of the allegations of Roseboro's pro se complaint were directed at his custody classification and consequent transfer from Polk Youth Center to Central Prison, and the remaining allegations challenge his segregation from the general prison population, the conduct of the prison guards and the failure to furnish him certain medical treatment. In support of his summary motion the defendant submitted his own affidavit, together with the affidavits of other members of the prison staff bearing upon the allegations of the complaint. Finding that the affidavits were in compliance with Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and noting that the plaintiff had failed to file any counter-affidavit controverting those submitted by the defendant, the district court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate.

In Wooten v. Shook, 527, F.2d 976 (4 Cir. 1975), we stated that '(w)hile we do not hold that an evidentiary hearing is required in every case such as this, the district court should ordinarily require that a dismissal or summary motion be supported by affidavit or other material sufficiently demonstrating that there is no factual issue and that dismissal is appropriate as a matter of law.' In the present case, of course, the defendant has met this requirement and if this were an ordinary civil action the failure of Roseboro to file any counter-affidavit would warrant the entry of summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to file...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7083 cases
  • Rumfelt v. Jazzie Pools Inc., 1:11cv217 (JCC/TCB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 31 Mayo 2011
    ...2011, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.2 [Dkt. 5.] The Motion was accompanied by the proper notice required by Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Rule 7(K). [Dkt. 5.] Plaintiff filed his opposition and a memorandum in support thereto on May 3, 2011. [Dkts. 15,......
  • Primus v. Padula, C.A. No. 4:07-cv-02652-PMD-TER.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 27 Mayo 2008
    ...along with supporting memorandum and exhibits. The undersigned issued an order filed October 26, 2007, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), advising the petitioner of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond ad......
  • Lineberry v. Johnson, Civil Action No. 5:17-04124
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • 10 Agosto 2018
    ...(Id., p. 222.); and (9) The Declaration of K. Kincaid-Wimbish (Id., pp. 224 - 225.). Page 6 Notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was issued to Plaintiff on March 21, 2018, advising him of the right to file a response to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss, or in......
  • Clay v. Yates, Civ. A. No. 91-741-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 15 Diciembre 1992
    ...of confinement" are not cognizable under § 1983). See also Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 71-72 (4th Cir.1983). 5 Apparently, no formal Roseboro notice has been given in this case. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975). However, since Clay has filed affidavits and other m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT