Larry Miller v. Jean Cunningham, No. 08-1742 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1742 LARRY MILLER; COMMITTEE, 11TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT REPUBLICAN Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JEAN CUNNINGHAM, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Elections; HAROLD PYON, in his official capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Elections; NANCY RODRIQUES, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00266-HEH) Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick M. McSweeney, Wesley G. Russell, Jr., MCSWEENEY, CRUMP, CHILDRESS & TEMPLE, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Paul A. Prados, CUCCINELLI & DAY, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, Stephen R. McCullough, State Solicitor General, James V. Ingold, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William C. Mims, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William E. Thro, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Larry Miller and the 11th Senatorial District Republican Committee appeal the district court s order denying their 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (2000) motion for attorneys fees. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district Miller v Cunningham, No. 3:05-cv-00266-HEH (E.D. Va. court. June 27, 2008). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.