Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06079/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06079-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6079

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00482-JRS)

Submitted: September 4, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Ray Duncan, II, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, 

Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6079 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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 movant 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 (E.D. 

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

Appeal: 15-6079 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 2