K.I.D. v. Charles Wilkins, No. 14-1846 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1846 K.I.D.; H. MITCHELL DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS, a/k/a A.L.D., a/k/a H.M.D.; ANGELA L. Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHARLES A. WILKINS, a/k/a Chuck, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cv-00177-JAG) Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015 Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Michael Sharman, COMMONWEALTH LAW OFFICES, PC, Culpeper, Virginia; R. Wayne Nunnally, R. WAYNE NUNNALLY, PC, Irvington, Virginia; Paul C. Stamm, Jr., Kilmarnock, Virginia, for Appellants. Alexander Francuzenko, Lee Warren, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: K.I.D., H. Mitchell Douglas and Angela L. Douglas appeal the district court’s order dismissing this action raising claims of strict liability, gross negligence, and negligence per se stemming from a deputy sheriff’s sexual abuse of a minor high school student. reversible error. We have Va. July the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. (E.D. reviewed 18, K.I.D. v. Wilkins, No. 3:14-cv-00177-JAG 2014). * 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 * We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. We note especially that significant action had taken place in federal court prior to the filing of the motion to remand this action to state court, and we agree with the district court that remand would not have served the interest of judicial economy. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). 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.