Pennington v. Tuefel ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2081
CLARENCE PENNINGTON; SHERRI J. PENNINGTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
STEVEN C. TUEFEL; KAREN WOOD; ROBERT BUTLER;
JIM WHITACRE; GARY POLING; LEE SAMSELL,
individually; RAY BROSIUS, as Berkeley County
Planning Commission President; BERKELEY COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JIM STUCKEY; ANTHONY J. PETRUCCI,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-05-4)
Submitted: February 6, 2006 Decided: February 27, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher P. Stroech, ARNOLD, CESARE & BAILEY, PLLC,
Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellants. Michael D. Lorensen,
BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, LLP, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Clarence and Sherri J. Pennington appeal the district
court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and
dismissing their civil rights complaint. The court found, among
other findings, that the Penningtons failed to state a claim
because they did not establish a cognizable property interest. We
review de novo a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
“accept[ing] as true the factual allegations of the challenged
complaint and . . . view[ing] those allegations in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Lambeth v. Board of Comm’rs, 407 F.3d
266, 268 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted) (alterations added), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 647 (2005). “[A] district court may dismiss a
complaint for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would
entitle him to relief.” Id.We find, for the reasons cited by the district court,
that the Penningtons did not have a cognizable property interest in
receiving a permit. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
- 3 -