Case ID: f-appx_554/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Richard W. Nagel, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; R.L. Davis, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Spata, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John H. Kim, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; T.B. Smith, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; S.N. Brim, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; Jonathan Stern, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; Kenneth Pfeiffer, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; Randall C. Hargus, Individually and in capacity as employee of Fairfax County, Virginia; John Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; John Doe # 3; John Doe # 4; John Doe # 5; John Doe # 6; John Doe # 7; John Doe # 8; John Doe # 9; John Doe # 10; John Doe # 11; John Doe # 12; John Doe # 13; John Doe # 14; John Doe # 15; John Doe # 16; John Doe # 17; John Doe # 18; John Doe # 19; John Doe # 20; John Doe # 21; John Doe # 22; John Doe # 23; John Doe # 24; John Doe # 25; John Doe # 26; John Doe # 27; John Doe # 28; John Doe # 29; John Doe # 30, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 8, 2014.
    Decided: Feb. 7, 2014.
    Eric S. Clark, Appellant pro se. Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; John David Gilbody, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric S. Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Defendants Nagel and Davis are entitled to judicial immunity. See King v. Myers, 973 F.2d 354, 356 (4th Cir.1992). The County is entitled to sovereign immunity in federal court, just as it is in state court. See Sossamon v. Texas, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1657-58, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011); Seabolt v. County of Albemarle, 283 Va. 717, 719, 724 S.E.2d 715 (2012). Clark’s First and Fourth Amendment claims are belied by the record. See, e.g., United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 335 (4th Cir.2008); Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 528 (4th Cir.2006); Brown v. Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362, 367 (4th Cir.2002). Clark’s remaining claims are likewise mer-itless. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.