Elizabeth Sines v. Richard Spencer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 23-1112
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1112

ELIZABETH SINES; SETH WISPELWEY; SORONYA HUDSON; APRIL MUNIZ; MARCUS MARTIN; JOHN DOE; NATALIE ROMERO; CHELSEA ALVARADO; THOMAS BAKER,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

TYLER MAGILL; HANNAH PEARCE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD SPENCER,

Defendant - Appellant,

JASON KESSLER; CHRISTOPHER CANTWELL; JAMES ALEX FIELDS, JR; VANGUARD AMERICA; ANDREW ANGLIN; MOONBASE HOLDINGS, LLC.; ROBERT AZZMADOR RAY; NATHAN DAMIGO; ELLIOTT KLINE, a/k/a Eli Mosely; IDENTITY EVROPA; MATTHEW HEIMBACH; DAVID MATTHEW PARROTT, a/k/a Matthew Parrott; TRADITIONALIST WORKER PARTY; MICHAEL HILL; MICHAEL TUBBS; LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH; JEFF SCHOEP; NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT; NATIONALIST FRONT; AUGUSTUS SOL INVICTUS; FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE ALT-KNIGHTS; MICHAEL ENOCH PEINOVICH; LOYAL WHITE KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN; EAST COAST KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, a/k/a East Coast Knights of the True Invisible Empire,

Defendants. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 7

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH)

Submitted: January 31, 2025 Decided: March 27, 2025

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Yotam Barkai, New York, New York, Karen L. Dunn, Jessica E. Phillips, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alan D. Levine, Senior Counsel, New York, New York, David E. Mills, Caitlin B. Munley, Robby Lee Ray Saldana, Joshua Michael Siegel, COOLEY LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gabrielle E. Tenzer, HECKER FINK LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:

Richard Spencer appeals from the district court’s judgment entered after a jury

verdict following trial in the civil action brought against him for conspiracy to commit

racially motivated violence, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); failure to prevent the

conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence from taking place, in violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1986; Virginia state civil conspiracy; and racial, religious, or ethnic

harassment, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.1 (count IV). Spencer argues that the

district court erred in denying his motion seeking a transfer in venue and in upholding the

magistrate judge’s order striking his summary judgment motion as untimely filed. He also

challenges the sufficiency of the allegations against him in the second amended complaint

and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on count IV. Upon review

of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error.

Regarding a venue transfer, Spencer moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (b) to

transfer venue from the Charlottesville, Virginia, division of the district court to the

division in Lynchburg, Virginia. The district court denied this motion, concluding that

neither § 1404(a) nor § 1404(b) authorized the venue transfer sought. On appeal, Spencer

presents no argument challenging these determinations. We therefore conclude that he has

waived appellate review of the district court’s transfer denial ruling. See Just Puppies,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 4 of 7

Inc. v. Brown, 123 F.4th 652, 660 n.4 (4th Cir. 2024); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,

856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017). *

Spencer challenges the district court’s ruling upholding the magistrate judge’s order

striking his summary judgment motion as untimely filed. We conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling. See United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors

Guild, 899 F.3d 295, 324 (4th Cir. 2018) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review

of district court ruling striking pleading); Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 283

(4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing “a district court’s decisions pertaining to the management of its

own docket” for abuse of discretion).

Spencer also challenges the sufficiency of some of the allegations in the second

amended complaint, arguing that several Plaintiffs could not properly allege a conspiracy

violating § 1985(3), that the allegations in this complaint were otherwise insufficient to

state a claim under § 1985(3), and that the allegations were insufficient to state claims for

Virginia state conspiracy and harassment. Spencer raises this challenge for the first time

on appeal. “Issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent

exceptional circumstances.” Milla v. Brown, 109 F.4th 222, 234 (4th Cir. 2024). “This

[c]ourt, however, has held that—in civil cases—we review forfeited arguments for

* The district court also assumed without deciding that venue would be proper in either Lynchburg or the Roanoke, Virginia, division but concluded that the factors guiding a decision whether to transfer a case under § 1404(a) supported keeping venue in Charlottesville. Because Spencer has not established reversible error in the district court’s ruling that a venue transfer was not permitted by § 1404(a) or § 1404(b), we need not reach Spencer’s arguments directed at this alternative conclusion.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 5 of 7

‘fundamental’ error, an inquiry that is at least as searching as the plain error standard set

out by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).” Id. “Under

Olano, an appellate court can use its discretion to correct an error not raised below if

(1) there is an error; (2) that error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

Id. We conclude that Spencer has not established fundamental error with respect to the

sufficiency of the allegations on these counts.

Finally, Spencer argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding

of liability on count IV. “To challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial

on appeal, a party must comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50,” which “sets out two different

stages for such a challenge.” Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir.

2012). First, under Rule 50(a), the party challenges “the sufficiency of the evidence before

a case is submitted to the jury.” Id. Rule 50(a) provides that a motion for judgment as a

matter of law made before the case is submitted to the jury “must specify the judgment

sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

50(a)(2) (emphases added). Second, Rule 50(b)—entitled “Renewing the Motion After

Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)—“sets forth the

requirements for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence after the jury verdict and entry

of judgment,” Belk, Inc., 679 F.3d at 155. This portion of Rule 50 provides for the filing

of “a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law” no later than 28 days after the entry

of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P 50(b) (emphasis added). A party that does not move for relief

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 6 of 7

“pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeits [its] sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal.”

Id. at 160; see Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404 (2006).

Spencer moved under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law in his favor before

the case was submitted to the jury on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to show

he conspired with anyone or sought to harm any of the Plaintiffs and because comments he

made were constitutionally protected. When he moved, however, post-verdict, for

judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict, he argued, among other matters, that the

evidence was insufficient to support the verdict on count IV because no evidence was

presented that he “directly harmed” the Plaintiffs or “expressly ordered someone else” to

harm them. This is the sufficiency argument Spencer raises on appeal.

We conclude that Spencer’s post-verdict motion did not comply with the demands

of Rule 50(b) on this point. Because Spencer did not move for judgment as a matter of law

under Rule 50(a) with respect to count IV based on the absence of evidence that he directly

harmed the Plaintiffs or expressly ordered someone else to harm them, he was “not

allowed” to seek relief under Rule 50(b) on this basis. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,

554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008). In raising on Rule 50(b) an argument he was not allowed to

raise, Spencer, we conclude, did not comply with the directive to “renew” his Rule 50(a)

motion. And because Spencer failed to move “pursuant” to the requirements of Rule 50(b),

he has “forfeit[ed] [his] sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal.” Belk, Inc.,

679 F.3d at 160. We therefore reject it on this basis.

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1112 Doc: 57 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 7 of 7

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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