Brody v. North Carolina State Board of Elections , 458 F. App'x 231 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1628
    MARK BRODY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; GARY O. BARTLETT,
    as director,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
    District Judge. (3:10-cv-00383-MOC-DSC)
    Submitted:    November 30, 2011            Decided:   December 15, 2011
    Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark Brody, Appellant Pro Se.        Susan Kelly Nichols, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,     Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mark     Brody     appeals       the     district           court’s   order
    dismissing his case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
    Brody brought suit against the North Carolina State Board of
    Elections       and    Gary     Bartlett,       in    his     official       capacity   as
    Director.        Brody alleges that several North Carolina election
    statutes are in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal
    Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Because Brody sought injunctive and declaratory relief
    against    a    state        official,   the    Ex     Parte       Young    exception   to
    sovereign immunity applies.              Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v.
    Stewart, 
    131 S. Ct. 1632
    , 1637 (2011); DeBauche v. Trani, 
    191 F.3d 499
    , 505 (4th Cir. 1999).                       Therefore, we find that the
    district court erred in dismissing Brody’s suit on sovereign
    immunity grounds.
    Nonetheless, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court     on    alternative       reasoning.           “We     are    not     limited   to
    evaluation      of     the    grounds    offered      by     the    district    court   to
    support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent
    from the record.”              United States v. Smith, 
    395 F.3d 516
    , 519
    (4th Cir. 2005).             Our review of the record leads us to conclude
    that Brody has presented no cause of action for which relief may
    be granted.           We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1628

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 231

Judges: Niemeyer, Agee, Keenan

Filed Date: 12/15/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024