Mike Webb v. James Kimmel, No. 23-1580 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1580 MAJOR MIKE WEBB, d/b/a Friends for Mike Webb (C00591537), agent of Major Mike Webb for Congress (H8VA08167), a/k/a Major Mike for VA, a/k/a Mike Webb for APS Board, agent of Major Mike Webb for APS Board, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES CHRISTIAN KIMMEL; WUSA9, a/k/a Channel 9; AMERICAN BROADCAST COMPANY INC., a/k/a Jimmy Kimmel Live!; WJLA TV, a/k/a News Channel 8; ABC LEGAL SERVICES; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP; JANE AND JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00392-MHL) Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023 Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mike Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick John Curran, Jr., Nathan Ellis Siegel, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Laurin Howard Mills, WERTHER & MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Mike Webb appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s instructions to particularize his claims and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and the court’s order denying his request for default judgment. We have reviewed Webb’s second amended complaint and conclude that the district court correctly found that Webb failed to provide specific factual allegations in support of his claims. Furthermore, while Webb argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his request for default judgment against three of the Defendants, the court properly denied Webb’s request on the ground that those Defendants were never served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, we affirm. Webb v. Kimmel, No. 3:22-cv-00392-MHL (E.D. Va. May 3, 2023; May 18, 2023). 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.
