Henry Duncan, II v. Harold Clarke, No. 15-6079 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6079 HENRY RAY DUNCAN, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA DOC, sued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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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.” have 56(a). We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. reviewed and materials legal before record and find no reversible Duncan v. Clarke, No. 3:12-cv-00482-JRS (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2015). facts the Fed. R. Civ. P. We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.