Surrell Duff v. Chris Potter, 665 F. App'x 242

Surrell Duff, a pretrial detainee at Buncombe County facility, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force (Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment) and deliberate indifference to medical needs.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; Duff filed a pro se response after receiving Roseboro notice and submitted a verified complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (declaring statements true).
The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, stating Duff offered no sworn affidavits or other admissible evidence opposing summary judgment.
On appeal Duff challenged only the excessive force rulings as to officers Potter, Mangum, and Baxter, arguing the district court should have treated his verified complaint as opposing affidavit evidence and resolved factual disputes in his favor.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and found the district court erred by not treating Duff’s verified complaint as admissible evidence and by resolving disputed factual issues against Duff.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendant Schindler on the deliberate-indifference claim as Duff did not challenge that ruling on appeal and thus forfeited review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Duff’s verified complaint must be treated as opposing affidavit evidence at summary judgment	Duff: his verified complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 is equivalent to an affidavit and creates genuine factual disputes	Defendants: summary judgment appropriate because Duff did not submit sworn affidavits or other admissible evidence opposing their motion	Held: Yes. Verified complaint is equivalent to opposing affidavit and district court erred by not treating it as such
Whether genuine disputes exist on excessive force facts (use/reasonableness of force)	Duff: factual conflicts (e.g., whether he resisted, how injury occurred) preclude summary judgment	Defendants: affidavits and record show force was reasonable and no triable issue	Held: Genuine disputes exist on key Kingsley factors (need, amount of force, injuries, resistance); remand required
Proper standard for excessive force by pretrial detainee	Duff: applied objective-unreasonableness standard (Kingsley)	Defendants: relied on record supporting reasonableness; district court applied summary judgment	Held: Court applies Kingsley objective-reasonableness test and must resolve factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor at summary judgment stage
Whether deliberate-indifference claim against Schindler survives appeal	Duff: (not argued on appeal)	Defendants: summary judgment proper	Held: Affirmed with forfeiture—Duff failed to challenge on appeal, so appellate review is forfeited

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) (notice procedure for pro se litigants opposing summary judgment)
Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (de novo review and summary judgment standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and jury standard at summary judgment)
World Fuel Servs. Trading, DMCC v. Hebei Prince Shipping Co., 783 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2015) (verified complaint equivalent to opposing affidavit)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2015) (objective-unreasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use of force analysis and relationship to Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial detainee protections against punishment)
Raynor v. Pugh, 817 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2016) (conflicting affidavits and credibility issues defeat summary judgment)
Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., 252 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment only when no material fact issue exists)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)