Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Kevin Clarke

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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