Court Opinion

ID: 9930919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:13.177195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:51.079518
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7006      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7006

        REGINALD M. LILES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRITTANY P. EDWARDS, Assistant District Attorney sued in their individual
        capacity,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00672-TDS-LPA)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Reginald M. Liles, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7006      Doc: 10          Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Reginald M. Liles appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and dismissing Liles’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.

        § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. This court reviews

        de novo a dismissal of a complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b). Shaw v. Foreman, 59 F.4th

        121, 126 (4th Cir. 2023). We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Liles’

        complaint. Although Liles’ claim against the Defendant Assistant District Attorney may

        not necessarily be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), any claim against

        the Defendant is frivolous because it is barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. “A

        prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions intimately associated with

        the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467,

        470 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. *    Liles v. Edwards, No. 1:23-cv-00672-TDS-LPA

        (M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2023). 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

               *
                 See Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizing this
        court’s authority to affirm for any reason appearing on the record).

                                                      2