Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06462/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 16-6462 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6462 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 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

Appeal: 16-6462 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3