Kenneth Awe v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6058 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6058 KENNETH V. AWE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE; LESLIE J. FLEMING; YVONNE M. TAYLOR; MR. JUSTUS, Defendants Appellees, and VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00546-JLK-RSB) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and April 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth denying his V. motion Awe appeals the district to compel discovery, court s granting orders summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Awe s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action, and denying relief from that judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Awe s informal brief. district court s discretion. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). rulings Carefirst on of discovery Md., Inc. We review the matters v. for Carefirst Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003). abuse of Pregnancy Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Awe s motion. Turning to the underlying judgment, we review the district court s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party]. PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court s grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm this order for the reasons stated by the district court. Awe v. Clarke, 2013). No. 7:12-cv-00546-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 12, Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the court s denial of Rule 59(e) relief from this order. 3 See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.