Court Opinion

ID: 9370122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 21:00:34.008043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.500040
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2369      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2369

        KENNETH D. LIGGINS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ZION BAPTIST CHURCH; PASTOR KARLYLE HILL; DEACON STEVE
        WASHINGTON; DEACON OTIS HARPER, SR.; CURTIS LIGGINS, Deacon in
        Training; NICOL HILL; DEACON JOSEPH TANSIMORE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Harrisonburg. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00058-TTC)

        Submitted: February 7, 2023                                       Decided: February 9, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth D. Liggins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2369      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth D. Liggins appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion

        to dismiss his civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), denying his motions for entry

        of default, and denying his motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. See Liggins v. Zion Baptist Church, No. 5:21-cv-00058-TTC

        (W.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2021; Dec. 6, 2021). 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