Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01018/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia
Appellee
Commonwealth of Virginia

David J. Laux
Appellant
Tara K. Laux
Appellant
James W. Patterson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1018

DAVID J. LAUX; TARA K. LAUX, a/k/a Tara K. Long,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; JAMES W. 

PATTERSON, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public 

Works and Environmental Services,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-01334-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: June 2, 2016 Decided: June 10, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Laux, Tara K. Laux, Appellants Pro Se. David P. 

Bobzien, County Attorney, Cynthia A. Bailey Deputy County 

Attorney, Christopher A. Costa, Sara G. Silverman, Assistant

Appeal: 16-1018 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

County Attorneys, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1018 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

David J. Laux and Tara K. Laux appeal the district court’s 

order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the 

record and the contentions on appeal and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Laux 

v. Bd. Of Supervisors of Fairfax Cty. Va., No. 1:15-cv-01334-

LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2015); see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462 (1983). 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: 16-1018 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 3 of 3