Eric Clark v. County of Fairfax, Virginia ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2101
ERIC S. CLARK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; RICHARD W. NAGEL,
Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County,
Virginia; R. L. DAVIS, Individually and in capacity as
employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; JOHN SPATA,
Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County,
Virginia; JOHN H. KIM, Individually and in capacity as
employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; T. B. SMITH,
Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County,
Virginia; S. N. BRIM, Individually and in capacity as
employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; JONATHAN STERN,
Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County,
Virginia; KENNETH PFEIFFER, Individually and in capacity as
employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; RANDALL C. HARGUS,
Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County,
Virginia; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE
#4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6; JOHN DOE #7; JOHN DOE #8;
JOHN DOE #9; JOHN DOE #10; JOHN DOE #11; JOHN DOE #12; JOHN
DOE #13; JOHN DOE #14; JOHN DOE #15; JOHN DOE #16; JOHN DOE
#17; JOHN DOE #18; JOHN DOE #19; JOHN DOE #20; JOHN DOE
#21; JOHN DOE #22; JOHN DOE #23; JOHN DOE #24; JOHN DOE
#25; JOHN DOE #26; JOHN DOE #27; JOHN DOE #28; JOHN DOE
#29; JOHN DOE #30,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00616-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: January 8, 2014 Decided: February 7, 2014
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric S. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; John David Gilbody,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric S. Clark appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Defendants Nagel and Davis are entitled to judicial immunity.
See King v. Myers, 973 F.2d 354, 356 (4th Cir. 1992). The
County is entitled to sovereign immunity in federal court, just
as it is in state court. See Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct.
1651, 1657-58 (2011); Seabolt v. County of Albermarle, 724
S.E.2d 715, 719 (Va. 2012). Clark’s First and Fourth Amendment
claims are belied by the record. See, e.g., United States v.
Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 335 (4th Cir. 2008); Blakenship v.
Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 528 (4th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Gilmore,
278 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir. 2002). Clark’s remaining claims are
likewise meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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