Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0057-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Ray DUNCAN, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of VA DOC, sued individually and in official capacity; G.M. Hinkle, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; M.R. Handsome, Lieutenant, Greensville Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-6079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 4, 2015.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2015.
    Henry Ray Duncan, II, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General Of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Ray Duncan, II, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pender v. Bank of Am. Corp., 788 F.3d 354, 361 (4th Cir.2015). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Duncan v. Clarke, No. 3:12-cv-00482-JRS, 2015 WL 75256 (EJD.Va. Jan. 6, 2015). 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.