King Miguel Eddie Crayton v. J. N. WILLIAMS, Deputy; D. L. MOON, Deputy; T. N. HAMNER, Deputy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1846
KING MIGUEL EDDIE CRAYTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. N. WILLIAMS, Deputy; D. L. MOON, Deputy; T. N. HAMNER, Deputy,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00038-DJN)
Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025
Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Matthew Black, Leslie A.
Winneberger, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
King Miguel Eddie Crayton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, Crayton does not challenge the district
court’s rulings on the substance of his claims. Instead, he raises various procedural
challenges to the district court’s consideration of his amended complaint. After reviewing
the record, we conclude that the district court carefully considered Crayton’s allegations
and followed the correct procedure when dismissing the amended complaint. We also
conclude that the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint without leave to
amend, as any amendment would be futile. See Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t
of Transp., 914 F.3d 213, 227-28 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining futility standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Crayton v. Williams, No. 3:25-cv-00038-
DJN (E.D. Va. July 2, 2025). 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 --