Amy C.M. Burns; Mary Donne Peters; Michael J. Gorby; Andre Aris Hakes, Appellants, v. 20 (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

NEXUS SERVICES, INC.; Michael Donovan; Richard Moore, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Amy C.M. Burns; Mary Donne Peters; Michael J. Gorby; Andre Aris Hakes, Appellants, v. Donald Lee MORAN, in his Individual capacity and in his Official Capacity, as a Deputy Sheriff of Augusta County, Virginia; Donald L. Smith, in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity as a Sheriff of Augusta County, Virginia; Michael Roane, in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Augusta County, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees, David L. Bourne, in his Individual capacity; Wanda Jean Shrewsbury, in her Individual capacity and in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Revenue of Augusta County, Virginia; Gene R. Ergenbright, in his Individual capacity and in his Official Capacity as a Business Tax Auditor for Augusta County, Virginia; John Does 1-20, Defendants.

No. 18-1445

Decided: February 07, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Joseph R. Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.

The Appellants, Nexus Services, Inc., Michael Donovan, and Richard Moore, and their attorneys below, Mary Peters, Amy Burns, Michael Gorby, and Andre Hakes, appeal the district court's award of attorney's fees against the Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2012), against the attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2012), and alternatively pursuant to the court's inherent authority to sanction the parties, following the Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and have found no reversible error. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law