Court Opinion

ID: 9895020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:46.993109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.258252
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580     Doc: 15        Filed: 11/02/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-1580

        MAJOR MIKE WEBB, d/b/a Friends for Mike Webb (C00591537), agent of Major
        Mike Webb for Congress (H8VA08167), a/k/a Major Mike for VA, a/k/a Mike
        Webb for APS Board, agent of Major Mike Webb for APS Board,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        JAMES CHRISTIAN KIMMEL; WUSA9, a/k/a Channel 9; AMERICAN
        BROADCAST COMPANY INC., a/k/a Jimmy Kimmel Live!; WJLA TV, a/k/a
        News Channel 8; ABC LEGAL SERVICES; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP;
        JANE AND JOHN DOES,

                           Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00392-MHL)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                              Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mike Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick John Curran, Jr., Nathan Ellis Siegel, DAVIS
        WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Laurin Howard Mills, WERTHER &
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580      Doc: 15         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580      Doc: 15          Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Mike Webb appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended

        complaint for failure to comply with the court’s instructions to particularize his claims and

        for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and the court’s order

        denying his request for default judgment. We have reviewed Webb’s second amended

        complaint and conclude that the district court correctly found that Webb failed to provide

        specific factual allegations in support of his claims. Furthermore, while Webb argues on

        appeal that the district court erred in denying his request for default judgment against three

        of the Defendants, the court properly denied Webb’s request on the ground that those

        Defendants were never served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, we affirm. Webb v.

        Kimmel, No. 3:22-cv-00392-MHL (E.D. Va. May 3, 2023; May 18, 2023). 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

                                                      3