Darrel White v. Dwayne Turner
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: D White. [16-6225]
Pg: 1 of 6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DARREL A. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
DWAYNE A. TURNER, Unit Manager; JEFFREY ARTRIP, EBP Manager;
LIEUTENANT DAY; LARRY JARVIS; KELLY STEWART; E. MILLER; C.
Defendants - Appellees
Ombudsman; GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator/Alp; HAROLD
W. CLARKE, Director; J. WALRATH, Assistant Warden,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
September 1, 2016
Decided: December 15, 2016
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrel A. White,
Pg: 2 of 6
Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson Vorhis,
Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 6
State Prison (ROSP) and the Virginia Department of Corrections,
After directing White to file an amended complaint, the
judgment and denied White’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
certain Defendants named in the original complaint and granting
summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants.
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).
The district court advised
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).
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
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
Among other claims asserted in his amended complaint, White
judgment on these claims based in part on our decision in Slezak
deciding, that the mode of analysis applied in Slezak has been
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
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
See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995);
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?