Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01846/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1846

K.I.D.; H. MITCHELL DOUGLAS, a/k/a H.M.D.; ANGELA L. 

DOUGLAS, a/k/a A.L.D.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHARLES A. WILKINS, a/k/a Chuck,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00177-JAG)

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Michael Sharman, COMMONWEALTH LAW OFFICES, PC, Culpeper, 

Virginia; R. Wayne Nunnally, R. WAYNE NUNNALLY, PC, Irvington, 

Virginia; Paul C. Stamm, Jr., Kilmarnock, Virginia, for 

Appellants. Alexander Francuzenko, Lee Warren, COOK CRAIG & 

FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1846 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

K.I.D., H. Mitchell Douglas and Angela L. Douglas appeal 

the district court’s order dismissing this action raising claims 

of strict liability, gross negligence, and negligence per se 

stemming from a deputy sheriff’s sexual abuse of a minor high 

school student. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. K.I.D. v. Wilkins, No. 3:14-cv-00177-JAG

(E.D. Va. July 18, 2014).* 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

 * We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the 

state law claims. We note especially that significant action 

had taken place in federal court prior to the filing of the 

motion to remand this action to state court, and we agree with 

the district court that remand would not have served the 

interest of judicial economy. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 

106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). 

Appeal: 14-1846 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 2