Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01654/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1654 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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. 

Appeal: 16-1654 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-1654 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3