Case Name: David J. LAUX; Tara K. Laux, a/k/a Tara K. Long, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIR-FAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; James W. Patterson, Director, Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Defendants-Appellees, and The Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-10
Citations: 654 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 16-1018
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
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.
No. 16-1018
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 2, 2016
Decided: June 10, 2016
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 County Attorneys, Fairfax County Attorney’s Office, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (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.