Dean Kinder v. James Rubenstein, No. 16-6102 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6102 DEAN JACKSON KINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; PAT MIRANDY, Warden; DANIEL KIMBLE, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00050-FPS-JES) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean Jackson Kinder, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Murray, ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dean Kinder appeals the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to state a claim. we confine brief. our review to the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). raised in On appeal, the informal For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Kinder declining first to argues sanction that the Defendants district for court “perjury” erred in committed by Defendants’ counsel in a memorandum in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The apparent misrepresentation by Defendants’ counsel was regrettable and potentially warranting of admonishment if made in bad faith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), (3), (c); In re Bees, 562 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing between counsel’s inadvertent mistake and statement in sanctions was bad faith). procedurally However, improper, Kinder’s see Fed. request R. Civ. for P. 11(c)(2), and the statement caused Kinder no prejudice, given that the magistrate corrected it. judge independently investigated and Under the circumstances presented, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision not to sua sponte issue a show cause order to address this isolated statement. See Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 281 F.3d 144, 151 (4th 2 Cir. 2002) (discussing sua sponte sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3)); Morris v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 448 F.3d 268, 277 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Next, Kinder challenges the district court’s repeated denials of his motions for appointed counsel and discovery. conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in We denying Kinder discovery during the pleading stage of the proceedings or in declining to appoint counsel, as Kinder’s articulate pleadings demonstrated his ability to present his claims. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 172 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for discovery matters), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review for denial of counsel); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (addressing factors relevant abrogated on 490 U.S. 296 district court’s to other appointment grounds (1989). by counsel Mallard Finally, factual of while recitation v. in civil U.S. Kinder regarding Dist. cases), Court, challenges grievances the he filed, we find no reversible error in its summary of Kinder’s complaint and attached grievance forms. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.
