Vladimir Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Incorporated

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1144 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/26/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1156 VLADIMIR KRUGLYAK, d/b/a Fruklyak, Inc., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN J. PHOEBUS, Defendant - Appellee, and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant. No. 25-1144 VLADIMIR KRUGLYAK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1144 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/26/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 No. 25-1795 VLADIMIR KRUGLYAK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00024-MFU-PMS) Submitted: October 14, 2025 Decided: November 26, 2025 Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vladimir Kruglyak, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1144 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/26/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Vladimir Kruglyak appeals the district court’s orders in this civil action granting Defendant Phoebus’s motion to dismiss, granting Defendant Home Depot’s consent to judgment in favor of Kruglyak in the amount of $3,696.35, granting summary judgment to Defendant Home Depot, and denying Kruglyak’s motions to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the amended motions to consolidate appeals as moot and affirm the district court’s orders. Kruglyak v. Phoebus, No. 1:22-cv-00024-MFU-PMS (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2023; Feb. 15, 2024) (No. 24-1156); Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00024-MFU-PMS (W.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2024; filed Jan. 28, 2025 & entered Jan. 29, 2025) (No. 25-1144); Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00024-MFU-PMS (W.D. Va. May 6, 2025; July 7, 2025) (25-1795). 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