Case Name: David KEENEY; Harold L. Summers, Jr.; Roscoe Tucker, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William J. CHARNOCK, individually and as the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney; Kanawha County Commission, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-14
Citations: 221 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 06-1977
Parties: David KEENEY; Harold L. Summers, Jr.; Roscoe Tucker, Plaintiffs— Appellees, v. William J. CHARNOCK, individually and as the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney; Kanawha County Commission, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
David KEENEY; Harold L. Summers, Jr.; Roscoe Tucker, Plaintiffs— Appellees, v. William J. CHARNOCK, individually and as the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney; Kanawha County Commission, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 06-1977.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2007.
Decided: March 14, 2007.
Johnnie E. Brown, Jeffrey B. Brannon, Pullin, Flowler & Flanagan PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Mark A. Carter, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Lonnie C. Simmons, Ditrapano, Barrett & Dipiero, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Keeney, Harold L. Summers, Jr., and Roscoe Tucker brought this action against Defendants William J. Charnock, individually and in his official capacity as the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney, and the Kanawha County Commission alleging they were terminated from their employment with the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), the First Amendment, and Article X, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on the ground they are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs' terminations. The district court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground it was unable to determine whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on the record before it. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Keeney v. Charnock, No. 2:05-ev-00390 (S.D.W.Va. July 26, 2006). 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.
We read the district court's memorandum opinion and order as authorizing the Defendants to again seek dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity following the completion of appropriate discovery.