USCA4 Appeal: 25-1846 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1846 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 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