Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Kevin Clarke, No. 14-1913 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1913 PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN M. CLARKE,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 Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Clarke, these Provident 1:06-cv-00792-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2014). Additionally, we have considered for a prefiling injunction against Clarke. such an injunction at this juncture. Appellee’s request We decline to impose 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 litigants for frivolous filings. 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997). upon vexatious and repetitive See Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 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 before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3