Stephen King v. Kimberly Darden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1551
STEPHEN E. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT KIMBERLY L. DARDEN; PATRICIA T. WATSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HENRY STEPHEN ALLEN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00742-JAG)
Submitted: June 10, 2020 Decided: July 17, 2020
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph F. Grove, JOSEPH F. GROVE, P.C., Mechanicsville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Samuel T. Towell, Deputy Attorney General, Erin R.
McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Martine E.
Cicconi, Deputy Solicitor General, Michelle S. Kallen, Deputy Solicitor General, Zachary
R. Glubiak, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia; William W.
Tunner, Michael G. Matheson, THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen E. King appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) and Virginia state law claims and the
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the parties’
briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. King v. Darden, No. 3:17-cv-00742-JAG (E.D. Va.
April 19, 2019; May 6, 2019). 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