Opinion
No. 19-1551
07-17-2020
STEPHEN E. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPECIAL AGENT KIMBERLY L. DARDEN; PATRICIA T. WATSON, Defendants - Appellees, and HENRY STEPHEN ALLEN, Defendant.
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UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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