Keeney v. Charnock ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1977
DAVID KEENEY; HAROLD L. SUMMERS, JR.; ROSCOE
TUCKER,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
WILLIAM J. CHARNOCK, individually and as the
Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney; KANAWHA
COUNTY COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (2:05-cv-00390)
Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 14, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnnie E. Brown, Jeffrey B. Brannon, PULLIN, FLOWLER & FLANAGAN
PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Mark A. Carter, DINSMORE & SHOHL,
LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Lonnie C. Simmons,
DITRAPANO, BARRETT & DIPIERO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Keeney, Harold L. Summers, Jr., and Roscoe Tucker
brought this action against Defendants William J. Charnock,
individually and in his official capacity as the Kanawha County
Prosecuting Attorney, and the Kanawha County Commission alleging
they were terminated from their employment with the Kanawha County
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000), the First Amendment, and Article X, Section 7 of the West
Virginia Constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’
complaint on the ground they are entitled to qualified immunity for
Plaintiffs’ terminations. The district court denied Defendants’
motion to dismiss on the ground it was unable to determine whether
Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on the record
before it.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Keeney v. Charnock, No. 2:05-cv-00390 (S.D. W.
Va. July 26, 2006). 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
*
We read the district court’s memorandum opinion and order as
authorizing the Defendants to again seek dismissal on the grounds
of qualified immunity following the completion of appropriate
discovery.
- 2 -