Court Opinion

ID: 9381130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:10.849724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.219381
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1191      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1191

        JUSTIN FRANKLIN KIRK,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CONSTELLIS, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00146-CMH-JFA)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charity C. Emeronye Swift, Stephen Christopher Swift, SWIFT & SWIFT,
        ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.L.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Bethany Ingle,
        Lauren M. Bridenbaugh, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Tysons Corner, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1191         Doc: 22       Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Justin Franklin Kirk appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion to

        amend his complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of Constellis, LLC, in Kirk’s

        civil action. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs

        and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

        court. Kirk v. Constellis, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00146-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2021;

        Jan. 20, 2022). 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

                                                      2