Ken Gryder v. FREDDIE MAC, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1570
KEN GRYDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FREDDIE MAC, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; FREDDIE MAC
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; GREG WATCHMAN; JACQUI WELCH; ELISE
COCKS; JONMICHAEL MONHEIM; JUSTIN THIVENER; FAUD CHAUDRY;
THE WASHINGTON DC OFFICE OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; LEATHA JOHNSON; MINDY WEINSTEIN,
Director of the Washington DC EEOC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 22-1767
KEN GRYDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FREDDIE MAC, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; FREDDIE MAC
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; GREG WATCHMAN; JACQUI WELCH; ELISE
COCKS; JONMICHAEL MONHEIM; JUSTIN THIVENER; FAUD CHAUDRY;
THE WASHINGTON DC OFFICE OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; LEATHA JOHNSON; MINDY WEINSTEIN,
Director of the Washington DC EEOC,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01380-LO-TCB)
Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ken Gryder, Appellant Pro Se. Jocelyn Renee Cuttino, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS,
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Ken Gryder appeals (1) the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Gryder’s complaint raising numerous civil claims;
and (2) the magistrate judge’s order denying Gryder’s motion to amend his complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment in Defendants’ favor. See Gryder v. Freddie Mac, No. 1:21-cv-01380-
LO-TCB (E.D. Va. June 29, 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

-- 3 of 3 --