Darrel White v. Dwayne Turner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999778705-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999778697-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00505-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999987465]. Mailed to: D White. [16-6225]

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6225

DARREL A. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DWAYNE A. TURNER, Unit Manager; JEFFREY ARTRIP, EBP Manager;
LIEUTENANT DAY; LARRY JARVIS; KELLY STEWART; E. MILLER; C.
STANLY; GILERHEART,
Defendants - Appellees
and
R.C.
MATHENA,
Warden;
J.B.
MESSER,
Institutional
Ombudsman/Grievance
Coordinator;
CURTIS
PARR,
Regional
Ombudsman; GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator/Alp; HAROLD
W. CLARKE, Director; J. WALRATH, Assistant Warden,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00505-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

September 1, 2016

Decided: December 15, 2016

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Darrel A. White,
Senior Assistant
Appellees.

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

Appellant Pro Se.
Attorney General,

Richard Carson Vorhis,
Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Darrel
§ 1983

A.

(2012)

White,
action

a

Virginia

against

inmate,

various

filed

employees

a

42

of

U.S.C.

Red

Onion

State Prison (ROSP) and the Virginia Department of Corrections,
alleging
rights.

violations

of

his

Eighth

and

Fourteenth

Amendment

After directing White to file an amended complaint, the

district

court

granted

the

Defendants’

motion

for

summary

judgment and denied White’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
White

now

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

terminating

certain Defendants named in the original complaint and granting
summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
As an initial matter, White challenges the district court’s
construction of his amended complaint as substituting certain
Defendants named in the original complaint with other Defendants
named only in the amended complaint. *

As a general rule, “an

amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the
original pleading of no effect.”

Young v. City of Mount Ranier,

238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001).
White

that

his

amended

complaint

*

The district court advised
would

supersede

all

prior

Although White did not designate the relevant May 28,
2015, order in his notice of appeal, we conclude that we have
jurisdiction to review that order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775
F.3d 170, 175-77 (4th Cir. 2014).

3

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

pleadings and therefore should include all parties and claims
that he wished to address.

Based on the caption of the amended

complaint and the specific factual allegations it raised, we
discern no error in the district court’s construction of that
complaint

as

seeking

relief

only

against

Defendants

Turner,

Artrip, Day, Jarvis, Stewart, Miller, Stanley, and Gilerheart,
and in dismissing the remaining Defendants on that basis.
Turning to the district court’s summary judgment ruling, we
review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment,
viewing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Harris v. Norfolk S.

Ry., 784 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir. 2015).

“Summary judgment is

proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”

Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793

F.3d

(4th

404,

408

Cir.

2015)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Among other claims asserted in his amended complaint, White
raised

several

classification

due
at

process

ROSP.

claims

The

related

district

to

court

his

security

granted

summary

judgment on these claims based in part on our decision in Slezak
v.

Evatt,

21

F.3d

590

(4th

Cir.

1994).

Assuming,

without

deciding, that the mode of analysis applied in Slezak has been
called

into

question

by

subsequent
4

authority,

see,

e.g.,

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222-23 (2005), we still find
no reversible error in the district court’s ruling, see Glynn v.
EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 218 n.1 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e can
affirm the district court’s decision on any grounds apparent
from the record.”).

Our review of the record reveals that White

failed

evidence

to

provide

to

support

a

finding

that

the

conditions of his confinement posed an atypical and significant
hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,
as required to establish a liberty interest giving rise to a due
process claim.
Incumaa

v.

Beverati

judgment

Stirling,

v.

therefore

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995);

Smith,

conclude
in

favor

791

120

F.3d

F.3d

that
of

517,

the

500,

504

court

Defendants

526-32
(4th

properly

as

to

(4th

Cir.

Cir.

1997).

granted

White’s

due

2015);
We

summary
process

claims.
Our review of the record also reveals no reversible error
in the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants
as to the remaining claims raised in White’s amended complaint.
We affirm the disposition of these claims substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court.

White v. Turner, No.

7:14-cv-00505-MFU-RSB (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2015).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
deny

White’s

transcripts

at

motions

for

government

appointment
expense.
5

of
We

counsel

dispense

and
with

We
for
oral

Appeal: 16-6225

Doc: 19

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

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

6