Christopher Steg v. James Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1654
CHRISTOPHER B. STEG; CAYLA B. STEG,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JAMES H. JOHNSON; CONRAD BOYD STURGES, III; DAVIS, STURGES
AND TOMLINSON, Lawyers; BETTY LYNN CURRIN; BETTY JOHNSON;
KIMBERLY J. ROGERS; ROGERS AND ROGERS, Lawyers; AMY J.
PERALTA; RANDOLPH A. BASKERVILLE; J. HENRY BANKS; CAROLINE
S. BURNETTE; SAMUEL B. CURRIN, III,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:16-cv-00149-BO)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher B. Steg; Cayla B. Steg, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher and Cayla Steg appeal the district court’s
order dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. 1 The district court
properly dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim on the
grounds that the defendants were immune from such claims, see
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (judges entitled
to absolute immunity unless acing in “clear absence of
jurisdiction”); Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467, 470
(4th Cir. 2000) (“A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for
prosecutorial functions intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Fleming v. Asbill, 42 F.3d 886, 889 (4th Cir. 1994)
(guardians ad litem immune from § 1983 claims for actions
“occurr[ing] within the judicial process”), or were not acting
under color of state law. Additionally, the court correctly
rejected federal civil conspiracy claim and did not err in
1
After the district court issued its order and judgment,
which relied in part on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we issued
an opinion clarifying the narrow scope of the doctrine. Thana
v. Bd. of License Commissioners for Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d
314 (4th Cir. 2016). However, because the district court
provided alternate and sufficient bases for rejecting all of the
Stegs’ claims, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the
court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis is in line with Thana.
2
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims. Accordingly, we affirm.
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