UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1371

MICHAEL T. DODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EVERETT BOOBER, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff 

of Jefferson County, West Virginia; ROBERT E. SHIRLEY, 

individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson 

County, West Virginia; PETER H. DOUGHERTY, individually and 

in his capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, West 

Virginia; JAMES B. CRAWFORD, III, individually and in his 

capacity as a member of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service 

Commission for Jefferson County, West Virginia; CHRISTOPHER 

JACKSON, individually and in his capacity as a member of the 

Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service Commission for Jefferson 

County, West Virginia; FRANK ROSARIO, individually and in 

his capacity as a member of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil 

Service Commission for Jefferson County, West Virginia; 

PATSY NOLAND, individually and in her capacity as a member 

of the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; 

DALE MANUEL, individually and in his capacity as a member of 

the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; 

WALT PELISH, individually and in his capacity as a member of 

the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; 

FRANCES MORGAN, individually and in her capacity as a member 

of the County Commission of Jefferson County; JANE TABB, 

individually and in her capacity as a member of the County 

Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; LYNN WIDMYER, 

individually and in her capacity as a member of the County 

Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; JOHN 

GRIFFITH,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,

Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-00149-JPB)

Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert W. Schulenberg, III, Mark McMillian, MARK MCMILLIAN 

ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

Sara E. Hauptfuehrer, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, Bridget M. Cohee, Amber M. Moore, STEPTOE & JOHNSON 

PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia; James T. Kratovil, KRATOVIL 

LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Michael T. Dodson, a former employee of the Jefferson 

County Sheriff’s Department, appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights 

complaint. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, the 

dispositive order, and the compiled joint appendix, and affirm 

substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Dodson v. Boober, No. 3:13–cv–00149-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 19, 

2014). 

Dodson contests the district court’s conclusion that 

Defendants satisfied their procedural due process obligation to 

conduct a pre-termination hearing by holding that hearing more 

than four years after Dodson’s employment was terminated. 

However, our review of the record leads us to conclude that this 

duty was fulfilled in July 2008, when Dodson was interviewed by 

a ranking member of the Sheriff’s Department about the 

allegations of misconduct made against him and provided an 

opportunity to refute the same. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. 

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-46 (1985); Garraghty v. Jordan, 

830 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (4th Cir. 1987). We agree with the 

district court that Defendants’ purported failure to satisfy the 

more particularized hearing requirements established under state 

law, see W. Va. Code Ann. § 7-14C-3 (LexisNexis 2010), or the 

governing administrative regulations does not rise to the level 
4

of a constitutional due process deprivation. See Goodrich v. 

Newport News Sch. Bd., 743 F.2d 225, 227 (4th Cir. 1984) (“When 

the minimal due process requirements of notice and hearing have 

been met, a claim that an agency’s policies or regulations have 

not been adhered to does not sustain an action for redress of 

procedural due process violations.”).

Because we may affirm “on any grounds apparent from 

the record[,]” Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 218 n.1 (4th 

Cir. 2013), and we agree with the district court that Dodson’s 

procedural due process claim fails as a matter of law, we affirm 

the judgment.* 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

 * We have reviewed the other arguments raised in Dodson’s 

appellate brief and find them to be meritless.