The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-1735•Eric E. Miller v. Colonial Pipeline Company
22-1735Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 22, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1735
ERIC E. MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY; STATE OF VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA; ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; DOUGLAS
DALTON, JR., CEO; JESSICA D. ABER; JAMES P. KENT, JR.; VIRGINIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL; JASON S. MIYARES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00762-DJN)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia;
Andrew Franklin Gann, Jr., Katherine Elizabeth Lehnen, Richmond, Virginia, Sylvia
Macon Kastens, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric E. Miller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended civil
complaint as to some defendants without prejudice for failure to serve under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m) and the remaining defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Miller v. Colonial Pipeline Co., No. 3:21-
cv-00762-DJN (E.D. Va. June 24, 2022). We deny Miller’s motion for appointment of
counsel. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.