John Doe v. Bill Crouch

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1364 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1364
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BILL CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia
Department of Health and Human Resources; AYNE AMJAD, in her official
capacity as Commissioner for the West Virginia Department of Health and Human
Resouces, Bureau of Public Health and State Health Officer, and; MATTHEW
WICKERT, in his official capacity as the State Registar for Vital Statistics,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00328)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1364 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
John Doe appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation with modifications, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action
challenging application of W. Va. Code. § 16-5-10(e) for lack of Article III standing and
as barred by the Rooker-Feldman ∗ doctrine, and directing him to show cause why a
prefiling injunction should not issue. Doe confines his appeal to the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
See Episcopal Church in S.C. v. Church Ins. Co. of Vt., 997 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 2021)
(reviewing de novo dismissal for lack of standing); Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249
(4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing de novo dismissal of claims as barred by Rooker-Feldman).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Doe v. Crouch, No. 2:22-cv-00328
(S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 2023). 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
D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S.
∗
413 (1923).
2