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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999987465]. Mailed to: D White. [16-6225]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6225 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 6 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6225 DARREL A. WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DWAYNE A. TURNER, Unit Manager; JEFFREY ARTRIP,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Attorney General, Richard Carson Vorhis, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-6225 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 6 PER CURIAM: Darrel § 1983 A. (2012) White, action a Virginia against inmate, various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

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?