Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Kevin Clarke , 588 F. App'x 294 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1913
    PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN M. CLARKE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00792-JCC-IDD)
    Submitted:   December 18, 2014            Decided:   December 22, 2014
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Kevin M. Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III,
    Stephen Charles Piepgrass, Edward Hutton Starr, Jr., TROUTMAN
    SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin M. Clarke appeals three of the district court’s
    post-judgment           orders.      With    respect      to   the   district        court’s
    order of March 4, 2008, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative
    because       we    affirmed      this      order    in    Clarke’s        prior    appeal.
    Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 284 F. App’x 54, 55
    (4th Cir. 2008).            With respect to the district court’s orders of
    July 1, 2014, and August 6, 2014, we have reviewed the record
    and    find    no       reversible   error.         Accordingly,      we    affirm     these
    orders for the reasons stated by the district court.                               Provident
    Life    and    Accident       Ins.    Co.    v.     Clarke,    1:06-cv-00792-JCC-IDD
    (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2014).
    Additionally,          we   have    considered     Appellee’s          request
    for a prefiling injunction against Clarke.                      We decline to impose
    such an injunction at this juncture.                      See Cromer v. Kraft Foods
    N. Am., Inc., 
    390 F.3d 812
    , 817-18 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing
    prefiling injunction and relevant factors).                      However, Clarke is
    hereby warned that federal courts, including this court, are
    authorized         to    impose   sanctions       upon    vexatious    and     repetitive
    litigants for frivolous filings.                     See Foley v. Fix, 
    106 F.3d 556
    , 558 (4th Cir. 1997).                 Further frivolous filings by Clarke
    may result in this court sanctioning him, including by ordering
    a prefiling injunction that limits his access to the court.
    2
    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 IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1913

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 294

Judges: Shedd, Wynn, Thacker

Filed Date: 12/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024