William Grant, II v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, No. 18-2031 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2031 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-2122 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-2331 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-2339 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-2428 WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge; Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18cv-00939-LO-TCB; 1:18-cv-01149-LMB-IDD) Submitted: April 30, 2019 Decided: May 17, 2019 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaints as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motions to amend his complaints. We have reviewed the records and find that these appeals are frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:18-cv-00939-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2018, Oct. 24, 2018, & Nov. 15, 2018); Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:18-cv-01149-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2018 & Oct. 24, 2018). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in Appeal Nos. 18-2031, 18-2339, and 18-2428. * In addition, we ordered Grant to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing any further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district court finds that the action is not frivolous. We find Grant’s response fails to show cause why sanctions and an injunction should not be imposed. Therefore, Grant is sanctioned $500 for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing any further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district court finds that the action is not frivolous. 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. DISMISSED * Leave to proceed in forma pauperis has previously been granted in Nos. 18-2122 and 18-2331. 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.