Everson v. Eagles

Filing 920080116

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1844 DAVID K. EVERSON; PATRICIA M. EVERSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CATHERINE C. EAGLES,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?