The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-6462•Arnold De Armond v. PATRICK J. GURNEY, Asst. Warden
16-6462Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 21, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6462
ARNOLD DE ARMOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK J. GURNEY, Asst. Warden; ANTON W. DANIEL, housing unit
manager and Institutional Classification Authority (ICA)
hearing officer; T. S. BYRD, unit manager buildings three and
four and also editor of a prison newsletter; LT. A. L. WHITE,
supervisor of building six; SGT. K. W. FORREST, institutional
investigator; SGT. W. LUCAS, attached to building three under
unit manager byrd; SGT. W. L. LEWIS, assistant hearings
officer; S. W. ALLEN, institutional hearings office,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
S. DARBY, unit manager for buildings one and two; LT. H.
MANNING, supervisor, personal property department; L. BAKER,
corporal corrections officer working personal property,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00203-RBS-LRL)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnold Lynn De Armond, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh
Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Arnold De Armond appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. De Armond v. Gurney,
No. 2:15-cv-00203-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2015 & Feb. 24,
2016). We dispense with oral 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.