Everson v. Eagles

Filing 920080116

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1844

DAVID K. EVERSON; PATRICIA M. EVERSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CATHERINE C. EAGLES, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Guilford/Rockingham County, North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-1845

DAVID K. EVERSON; PATRICIA M. EVERSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00901-JAB; 1:06-cv-00902-JAB)

Submitted:

January 9, 2008

Decided:

January 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David K. Everson, Patricia M. Everson, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: David K. and Patricia M. Everson appeal the district court's orders granting Respondents' motions to dismiss the

Eversons' 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 (2000) claims.

The district

court found the Eversons' claims were barred by absolute judicial immunity, the Eleventh Amendment, the Rooker-Feldman* abstention doctrine, and because they failed to state a federal claim. Eversons challenge each of the district court's findings. We have reviewed the record, the parties' informal The

briefs, and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Everson v. Eagles, No. 1:06-cv-00901-JAB (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2007); Everson v. Goodson, No. 1:06-cv-00902-JAB (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). - 3 -

*