Tina M. Grace; Larry Grace v. C. Michael Sparks; Michael Thornsbury

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2536
TINA M. GRACE; LARRY GRACE,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
C. MICHAEL SPARKS; MICHAEL THORNSBURY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JAY LOCKARD, individually and in their (former) official
capacity; THE WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS;
STEVEN D. CANTERBURY, its administrator; THE MINGO COUNTY
COMMISSION, together with its present (and former)
commissioner(s) and in their (his) official capacity; GREG
SMITH; JOHN MARK HUBBARD; DIANE HANNAH; DAVID L. BAISDEN;
MINGO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:15-cv-01505)
Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 9, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Richard A. Robb, South Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Philip B. Sword, William R. Slicer, Michael D.
Dunham, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia; Gary E. Pullin, Emily L. Lilly, PULLIN, FOWLER,
FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Tina and Larry Grace appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
Specifically, the Graces challenge the district court’s
dismissal of the claims against appellees C. Michael Sparks and
Michael Thornsbury. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Grace v. Sparks, No. 2:15-cv-01505 (S.D.
W. Va. Nov. 19, 2015 & July 25, 2016); see Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
430-31 (1976). 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

-- 3 of 3 --