Christopher Dontell v. Susan Safford

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7109 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7109 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN DONTELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUSAN SAFFORD; JONI CURCIO, Sgt;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7109 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7109 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Christopher Allen Dontell appeals the district court’s order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