David J. Laux v. Board of Supervisor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01334-LMB-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999849522]. Mailed to: Laux, Laux. [16-1018]

Appeal: 16-1018

Doc: 17

Filed: 06/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1018

DAVID J. LAUX; TARA K. LAUX, a/k/a Tara K. Long,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; JAMES W.
PATTERSON, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public
Works and Environmental Services,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01334-LMB-MSN)

Submitted:

June 2, 2016

Decided:

June 10, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Laux, Tara K. Laux, Appellants Pro Se. David P.
Bobzien, County Attorney, Cynthia A. Bailey Deputy County
Attorney, Christopher A. Costa, Sara G. Silverman, Assistant

Appeal: 16-1018

Doc: 17

Filed: 06/10/2016

County Attorneys, FAIRFAX
Virginia, for Appellees.

Pg: 2 of 3

COUNTY

ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE,

Fairfax,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1018

Doc: 17

Filed: 06/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David J. Laux and Tara K. Laux appeal the district court’s
order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice.
record and
error.

the

contentions

on

appeal

and

We have reviewed the
find

no

reversible

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Laux

v. Bd. Of Supervisors of Fairfax Cty. Va., No. 1:15-cv-01334LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2015); see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3