Court Opinion

ID: 9882344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 21:00:29.700256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.414451
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1004      Doc: 16        Filed: 10/04/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1004

        MICHAEL MCCLOUD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CRISTELLA RICE; NEWPORT NEWS REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING
        AUTHORITY,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary of HUD; KELLY BRUNSON; STUART
        GARDENS ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cv-00004-MSD-RJK)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                Decided: October 4, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1004      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/04/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Michael McCloud, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew D. Meadows, JONES, BLECHMAN,
        WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1004      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/04/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael McCloud appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

        Defendants in McCloud’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Specifically, we conclude that McCloud failed to demonstrate that

        Defendants violated his due process rights as a matter of law because he had no

        constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in his application for a Section 8

        housing voucher. See, e.g., Phelps v. Hous. Auth. of Woodruff, 742 F.2d 816, 822-23 (4th

        Cir. 1984). Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment on McCloud’s

        claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                     3