Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Glenn MYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan STONEY; County of Fairfax Government; Sharon Bulova, Chairman of County of Fairfax; Hon. Michael Joseph Cassidy, Presiding Judge, Chief Judge; Omar Mercedes; Christopher Barr; Technical Department, Fairfax County Courthouse, Defendants-Appellees.
Glenn Myer appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012) action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. While the district court may have erred in concluding that Myer's claim against Christopher Barr was barred by quasijudicial immunity, see McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 4 (4th Cir. 1972) (holding that quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to clerk's performance of “required ministerial act[s] such as properly filing papers”), its conclusion that Myer failed to allege that Barr conspired to violate Myer's civil rights is well-supported. The district court also erroneously determined that the County of Fairfax Government (“the County”) was not subject to suit. See Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1404 (2018) (“Every locality may sue or be sued in its own name in relation to all matters connected with its duties.”). But, the court properly found that Myer did not sufficiently allege that the County was involved in a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. With respect to the remainder of Myer's claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Myer v. Stoney, No. 1:18-cv-00722-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. June 21, 2018). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1735
Decided: February 08, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)