David Meyers v. Harold Clarke, No. 19-6178 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6178 DAVID MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director; F.B.I.; D.O.J.; U.S. DISTRICT COURT; CONRAD, U.S. Judge; R. BALLOU; C. DUDLEY; DR. LAURENCE WANG; R. STOOTS; B. ALVIS; B. DYE; R. BISHOP; S. SIMONS; J. D. BENTLEY; J. FANNIN; C. R. STANELY; WALTER SWINEY; OFC. GWEN; D. TATE; F. STANELY; A. CLEVINGER; D. C. STALLARD; PAUL HAYMES; A. ROBINSON; M. L. COUNTS; WESTERN REGIONAL PREA ANALYST; J. KING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00273-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 21, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Meyers, a Virginia inmate and three-striker, appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion to seal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (stating standard of review); In re Application & Affidavit for a Search Warrant, 923 F.2d 324, 326 (4th Cir. 1991) (same). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Meyers’ motions to consolidate and for appointment of counsel. 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 2

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.