Arnold De Armond v. Patrick Gurney, No. 16-6462 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6462 ARNOLD DE ARMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK J. GURNEY, Asst.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. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Arnold De Armond appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed 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

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.