CHIEN v. VA III VA VA (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Andrew CHIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VA; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Chesterfield County; Karl S. Leonard, Sheriff of Chesterfield County; Frederick G. Rockwell, III, Judge of Chesterfield Circuit Court; Judy L. Worthington, former Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; Mary E. Craze, Deputy Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; Wendy S. Hughes, Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; Donald W. Lemons, Chief Justice of VA Supreme Court; Glen A. Huff, Chief Judge of VA Court of Appeals; W. Allan Sharrett, Hon., Chief Judge, Prince George Circuit Court; Dennis S. Proffitt, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-1523

Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Andrew Chien, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Snead Gregor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeffrey Lee Mincks, County Attorney, Emily Claire Russell, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Chesterfield, Virginia; John P. O'Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; William Fisher Etherington, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Andrew Chien appeals an order of the district court ruling on two postjudgment motions. First, the district court denied Chien's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We review this order for an abuse of discretion, Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and we perceive no such abuse in the district court's ruling. Chien also seeks to challenge the court's denial of an extension of time to file an appeal. As Chien has filed a timely appeal, this portion of the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment and deny Chien's motion to disqualify the district court judge. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law