USCA4 Appeal: 22-1570 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1570 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1570 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 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