Case Name: David K. EVERSON; Patricia M. Everson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard L. DOUGHTON, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Alleghany/Rockingham County, North Carolina, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 366 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 09-1883
Parties: David K. EVERSON; Patricia M. Everson, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Richard L. DOUGHTON, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Alleghany/Rockingham County, North Carolina, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 461–461

Head Matter:
David K. EVERSON; Patricia M. Everson, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Richard L. DOUGHTON, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of Alleghany/Rockingham County, North Carolina, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-1883.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2010.
David K. Everson, Patricia M. Everson, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David K. and Patricia M. Everson appeal the district court's orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action, denying their motion for recusal, and issuing a pre-filing injunction against them. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in both its orders, as well as the judgment, dated July 15, 2009. Everson v. Doughton, No. 1:08— cv-00887-JAB-PTS (M.D.N.C. July 15, 2009). 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.