explaining that Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only “if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only “if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice”
- providing that when leave to amend is denied based on futility grounds, this court conducts a de novo review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2212 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2212
RICKEY NATHANIEL BROWN, a/k/a Ricky Brown,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORPORATION; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; PHILLIP
MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:22-cv-02938-JD)
Submitted: April 25, 2024 Decided: July 16, 2024
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Kutz Kelley, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
(US) LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; Caroline Marie Gieser, SHOOK HARDY BACON,
LLP, Kansas City, Missouri, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2212 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Rickey Nathaniel Brown, a South Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denying Brown’s request for leave
to amend his complaint, and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Brown’s civil action,
as well as the court’s subsequent order denying Brown’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter or amend its judgment. Upon review of the record, we discern no error in the court’s
initial dismissal order or in denying Brown’s request for leave to amend his complaint. See
In re Triangle Cap. Corp. Sec. Litig., 988 F.3d 743, 750 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing that
when leave to amend is denied based on futility grounds, this court conducts a de novo
review). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s Rule 59(e) motion
because he did not establish any of the requisite grounds for such relief. See Wicomico
Nursing Home v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 750 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review);
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that
Rule 59(e) relief may be granted only “if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has
been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Brown v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco
Co., Inc., No. 4:22-cv-02938-JD (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2023 & Oct. 26, 2023). 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