B. K. Cruey, PC v. Ricky Lee Early

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cv-00516-gec Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998672521].. [10-2330]

Appeal: 10-2330

Document: 34

Date Filed: 09/08/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2330

B. K. CRUEY, PC; BILLY K. CRUEY,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
R. J. KIRBY, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff, and as
agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff, and Montgomery County,
Virginia; D. L. CONNER, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff,
and as agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff, and Montgomery
County, Virginia; J. T. WHITT, Individually, and as Sheriff,
Montgomery County, Virginia, and as agent for Montgomery
County, Virginia; BRUCE W. NESTER; UNKNOWN SUPERVISORS AND
DEPUTIES, Montgomery County Sheriff's Department; RICKY LEE
EARLY; ERIC NESTER; ROGER DALE NESTER; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY,
VIRGINIA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STEPHEN C. HUFF, JR.; ELINOR E. WILLIAMS, as Magistrate and
Agent for the County of Montgomery, Virginia; KAREN SUE
GARNAND, Magistrate and Agent for the County of Montgomery,
Virginia; HOWARD M. GREGORY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00516-gec)

Submitted:

August 24, 2011

Decided:

September 8, 2011

Appeal: 10-2330

Document: 34

Date Filed: 09/08/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy K. Cruey, B. K. CRUEY, PC, Shawsville, Virginia, for
Appellants.
Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C.,
Salem, Virginia; Matthew E. Kelley, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-2330

Document: 34

Date Filed: 09/08/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy
appeal

the

Defendants,

K.

Cruey

district
granting

and

the

court’s
summary

law

firm

orders

judgment

B. K.

Cruey,

dismissing
to

other

PC,

certain

Defendants,

denying injunctive relief to Cruey, and declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in Cruey and the
law firm’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action.

On

appeal, Appellants question whether the district court erred in
dismissing their § 1983 claims as to certain Defendants, denying
injunctive

relief,

and

refusing

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over certain of the state-law claims.

However,

because Appellants fail to support their claims in accordance
with

Fed.

R.

App.

argument . . . must
the

reasons

for

P.

28(a)(9)(A)

(“[T]he

contain . . . appellant’s

them,

with

citations

to

the

[appellant’s]

contentions

and

authorities

and

parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”), we deem
the claims waived.

Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.,

562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly,
We

dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

the

district

because

the

court’s
facts

orders.

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3