Everson v. Eagles , 261 F. App'x 616 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. The
Eversons challenge each of the district court’s findings.
We have reviewed the record, the parties’ informal
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 -