Case ID: f-appx_261/html/0616-01.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

David K. EVERSON; Patricia M. Everson, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Catherine C. EAGLES, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Guilford/Rockingham County, North Carolina, Defendant—Appellee. David K. Everson; Patricia M. Everson, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Defendant—Appellee.
    Nos. 07-1844, 07-1845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 9, 2008.
    Decided: Jan. 16, 2008.
    David K. Everson, Patricia M. Everson, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Office of the Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

David K. and Patricia M. Everson appeal the district court’s orders granting Respondents’ motions to dismiss the Ever-sons’ 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 (2000) claims. The district court found the Ever-sons’ claims were barred by absolute judicial immunity, the Eleventh Amendment, the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, and because they failed to state a federal claim. The Eversons challenge each of the district court’s findings.

We have reviewed the record, the parties’ informal briefs, and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Everson v. Eagles, No. 1:06-cv-00901-JAB (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2007); Everson v. Goodson, No. 1:06-cv-00902-JAB (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2007). 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. 
      
      
        See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).