Godwin v. State of Virginia Child Support Enforcement Division

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2112
GAIL W. GODWIN; SKYE GODWIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
STATE OF VIRGINIA CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION; STEPHEN CANNELLA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-421)
Submitted: February 24, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gail W. Godwin, Skye Godwin, Appellants Pro Se. Peter Robert
Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia; William DeLaney Bayliss, James Scott Kulp, WILLIAMS,
MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gail Godwin and Skye Godwin appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on their complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985
(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
district court.* See Godwin v. Virginia Child Support Enforcement
Division, No. CA-0-421 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2002). 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
*
To the extent that Gail Godwin has standing based on her
claims of humiliation, embarrassment, and mental and emotional
stress, her claims fail for the same reasons as Skye’s, as set
forth in the district court’s opinion. Further, as to Plaintiffs’
claim on appeal that Defendant Canella should be considered a state
actor because he conspired with state actors, their claim is
unsupported and thus must fail. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d
782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984).
2