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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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