David Meyers v. Ralph Northam

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 3, 2019
• Docket: 19-6189
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6189

DAVID MEYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOVERNOR RALPH NORTHAM, Governor of Virginia,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 19-6191

DIRECTOR HAROLD CLARKE; KEITH DAWKINS; GAIL JONES; CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION SERVICES VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-6198

Petitioner - Appellant, v.

HAROLD CLARKE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LITIGATION UNIT; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; SUPERINTENDENT OF THE VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; WISE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; WISE COUNTY MAGISTRATE; WISE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY MAGISTRATE; BRUNSWICK COUNTY MAGISTRATE; TAZEWELL COUNTY MAGISTRATE; L. GREEN, Brunswick Commonwealth Attorney; PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY; TAZEWELL COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY; WISE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge; Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00473-MFU-RSB; 7:17-cv-00201-GEC-PMS; 7:17-cv-00206-GEC-PMS)

Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 3, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, David Meyers appeals the district court’s orders

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 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