Court Opinion

ID: 9412369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:58.322898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:09.818935
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1364      Doc: 7         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1364

        JOHN DOE,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        BILL CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia
        Department of Health and Human Resources; AYNE AMJAD, in her official
        capacity as Commissioner for the West Virginia Department of Health and Human
        Resouces, Bureau of Public Health and State Health Officer, and; MATTHEW
        WICKERT, in his official capacity as the State Registar for Vital Statistics,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00328)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1364      Doc: 7         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Doe appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation with modifications, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action

        challenging application of W. Va. Code. § 16-5-10(e) for lack of Article III standing and

        as barred by the Rooker-Feldman ∗ doctrine, and directing him to show cause why a

        prefiling injunction should not issue. Doe confines his appeal to the district court’s

        dismissal of his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        See Episcopal Church in S.C. v. Church Ins. Co. of Vt., 997 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (reviewing de novo dismissal for lack of standing); Hulsey v. Cisa, 947 F.3d 246, 249

        (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing de novo dismissal of claims as barred by Rooker-Feldman).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Doe v. Crouch, No. 2:22-cv-00328

        (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 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

               D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S.
               ∗

        413 (1923).

                                                    2