Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Thomas H. FLUHARTY, in his official capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee; Thomas J. Jacquez, husband; Diana R. Jacquez, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLARKSBURG, a municipal corporation and political subdivision; James C. Hunt; Margaret H. Bailey; Martin G. Howe; Adam Barberio; H. Keith Kesling; Jonathan R. Davis, Defendants-Appellees
707 F. App'x 791·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·2018
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit' Judges, and Paula XINIS, United States ■ District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Thomas H. FLUHARTY, in his official capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee; Thomas J. Jacquez, husband; Diana R. Jacquez, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLARKSBURG, a municipal corporation and political subdivision; James C. Hunt; Margaret H. Bailey; Martin G. Howe; Adam Barberio; H. Keith Kesling; Jonathan R. Davis, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1177
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: January 8, 2018
J. Michael Benninger, BENNINGER LAW, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Jay T. McCamic, MCCAMIC, SACCO & MCCOID, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Keith C. Gamble, Kenneth L. Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, Morgan-town, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit' Judges, and Paula XINIS, United States ■ District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Herbert Fluharty, Thomas J. Jacquez, and Diana R. Jacquez appeal the district court’s order, dismissing their civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Wé agree with the district court that the Appellants’ action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and was not tolled or saved by the continuing violation doctrine. We also agree with the district court that the Appellants failed to establish a violation of their procedural due process rights. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fluharty v. City of Clarksburg, No. 1:14-cv-00027-IMK-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 3, 2017). 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