Andrew Chien v. Commonwealth of VA, No. 18-1523 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1523 ANDREW CHIEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VA; MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General; CHESTERFIELD COUNTY; KARL S. LEONARD, Sheriff of Chesterfield County; FREDERICK G. ROCKWELL, III, Judge of Chesterfield Circuit Court; JUDY L. WORTHINGTON, former Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; MARY E. CRAZE, Deputy Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; WENDY S. HUGHES, Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; DONALD W. LEMONS, Chief Justice of VA Supreme Court; GLEN A. HUFF, Chief Judge of VA Court of Appeals; W. ALLAN SHARRETT, Hon., Chief Judge, Prince George Circuit Court; DENNIS S. PROFFITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00677-LO-TCB) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Chien, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Snead Gregor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeffrey Lee Mincks, County Attorney, Emily Claire Russell, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Chesterfield, Virginia; John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; William Fisher Etherington, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Chien appeals an order of the district court ruling on two postjudgment motions. First, the district court denied Chien’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We review this order for an abuse of discretion, Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and we perceive no such abuse in the district court’s ruling. Chien also seeks to challenge the court’s denial of an extension of time to file an appeal. As Chien has filed a timely appeal, this portion of the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny Chien’s motion to disqualify the district court judge. 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 3

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.