UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7659
REGINALD KEITH BALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY ARTRIP; G. K. WASHINGTON; ASST. WARDEN WALWRATH;
UNIT MANAGER WALTER SWINEY; COUNSELOR J. D. KING; R.
MATHENA, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00438-GEC)
Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Keith Ball, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Keith Ball appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice
and denying his motions to amend his complaint and for
reconsideration. * We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure
to state a claim, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Kensington
Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th
Cir. 2012). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain
sufficient facts “to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007), and “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face,” id. at 570.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
determination to deny a motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) and to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674
F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012); see Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l
Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (discussing
*
We construe Ball’s motion for reconsideration as seeking
relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO,
569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). Regardless of its
construction, however, the outcome remains the same.
2
grounds for Rule 59(e) relief). Leave to amend should be freely
given but may be denied when “the amendment would have been
futile.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en
banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
As the district court correctly concluded, Ball’s original
complaint and postjudgment pleadings failed to establish that
prison officials relied to any constitutionally significant
degree upon the allegedly false information Ball seeks to have
expunged from his record under Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th
Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court. Ball v. Artrip, No.
7:14-cv-00438-GEC (W.D. Va. Sept. 29 & Oct. 31, 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
3