David Meyers v. Harold Clarke ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6178
DAVID MEYERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director; F.B.I.; D.O.J.; U.S. DISTRICT COURT; CONRAD,
U.S. Judge; R. BALLOU; C. DUDLEY; DR. LAURENCE WANG; R. STOOTS; B.
ALVIS; B. DYE; R. BISHOP; S. SIMONS; J. D. BENTLEY; J. FANNIN; C. R.
STANELY; WALTER SWINEY; OFC. GWEN; D. TATE; F. STANELY; A.
CLEVINGER; D. C. STALLARD; PAUL HAYMES; A. ROBINSON; M. L.
COUNTS; WESTERN REGIONAL PREA ANALYST; J. KING,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00273-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 21, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Meyers, a Virginia inmate and three-striker, appeals the district court’s order
denying his postjudgment motion to seal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse
of discretion. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (stating
standard of review); In re Application & Affidavit for a Search Warrant, 923 F.2d 324, 326
(4th Cir. 1991) (same). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Meyers’ motions to consolidate
and for appointment of counsel. 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
2