Fourth Circuit Revives Disabled Prisoner’s Claim for Denial of Out-of-Cell Exercise Time
by David Reutter
On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found material issues of disputed facts were present in a South Carolina prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim that alleged the disabled prisoner was confined to a cell and denied out-of-cell exercise time. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
Prisoner Theodore Jerry Bolick, prior to his incarceration, suffered injuries that resulted in surgery that placed rods and pins in his feet and legs that required physical therapy and exercise to rehabilitate. Shortly after surgery, Bolick was sentenced to 12 years in prison, which resulted in his transfer from the county jail to the Kirkland Correctional Institution Reception and Evaluation Center (“Kirkland”).
Kirkland places new arrivals in segregation as they await classification and evaluation. Over two periods of five months, or 324 days, Bolick was confined to a cell and deprived of out-of-cell exercise time. Bolick’s repeated requests for medical care and exercise to rehabilitate his injuries were denied and he was directed to complete in-cell exercise in accord with a South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) pamphlet. Two prison doctors diagnosed Bolick with arthritis, major depressive disorder and an unspecified personality disorder.
Bolick filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint against DOC Director Joel Anderson, Kirkland Warden Terrie Wallace and unit Lieutenants Elaine Sumter, Twonda Wright and Catherine Robb. After completing discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the motion. Bolick appealed.
The Fourth Circuit found Bolick presented facts to support that the deprivation of out-of-cell exercise time caused him to suffer atrophy of muscles that led to fatigue, chest pain, joint stiffness and aches in his back, hips, legs and feet. The cell had less than 25 square feet of unencumbered space and held two to three men.
Aside from stating the segregation was necessary to security, the Defendants failed to present any individualized rationale to deny Bolick out-of-cell time. The Court rejected the Defendants’ shortness of confinement time argument, for the proper analysis is a totality of the circumstances. The Court concluded that material issues of fact existed on the question of whether the deprivation was significantly serious.
The Court further concluded the right to out-of-cell exercise time was clearly established. Therefore, the Warden and Lieutenants were denied qualified immunity. The Court, however, found the claim of supervisory liability against Anderson was due to be dismissed due to a lack of knowledge of the deprivation. The district court’s order was reversed in part and affirmed in part. See: Bolick v. Anderson, 169 F.4th 528 (4th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Bolick v. Anderson
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 169 F.4th 528 (4th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |