UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7252

MIKA’YA ALI SHAKUR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HENRY PONTON, Warden; MRS. SANDERS, Hearing Officer; LT. 

MOICHECK, Lead Investigator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-00406-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mika’ya Ali Shakur, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mika’ya Ali Shakur appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to 

state a claim for relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 

(2012), and denying his postjudgment motion to amend. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

Shakur first challenges the district court’s dismissal of 

his due process challenge to his institutional conviction. We 

review de novo the dismissal of an action for failure to state a 

claim under § 1915A(b)(1). Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 

407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005). To survive dismissal, “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). In making this determination, we need not 

accept “legal conclusions drawn from the facts, . . . 

unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” 

Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals no error in the district 

court’s conclusion that Shakur failed to state a cognizable 

deprivation of his due process rights. See Superintendent, 

Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985); Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974); see also Kennedy v. 
3

Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that 

mere violation of state law does not support federal due process 

violation). Although Shakur argues that the district court 

should not have dismissed his action without sua sponte granting 

leave to amend, we find no error in the court’s refusal to grant 

such leave under the circumstances presented. See Matrix 

Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193 

(4th Cir. 2009). 

Shakur similarly argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying his postjudgment motion to amend the

complaint. We review the denial of a postjudgment motion to 

amend for abuse of discretion. Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for 

Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012). 

A plaintiff cannot amend as of right after the dismissal of his 

action with prejudice. Sachs v. Snider, 631 F.2d 350, 351 (4th 

Cir. 1980). Instead, the district court may not grant a 

postjudgment motion to amend a complaint unless the judgment is 

set aside or vacated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). 

Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether 

vacatur is warranted, however, the court need not concern itself 

with either of those rules’ legal standards,” but “need only ask 

whether the amendment should be granted, just as it would on a 

prejudgment motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).” 
4

Katyle v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 

2011). 

Shakur did not provide the court with a proposed amended 

complaint, preventing the court from determining whether Shakur 

could meet the requirements for amendment. Moreover, our review 

of the amended complaint Shakur ultimately filed supports the 

court’s decision to deny amendment. See Matrix Capital, 576 

F.3d at 193.

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