Derek Jarvis v. Deborah Chasanow, No. 11-1249 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1249 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Chief Judge, US District Court for the District of Maryland; CHARLES B. DAY, Magistrate Judge, US District Court for the District of Maryland; PETER J. MESSITTE, Judge, US District Court for the District of Maryland; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK S OFFICE; TRAXLER, Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; AGEE, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-00627-AW) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district Jarvis v. Chasanow, No. 8:11-cv-00627-AW (D. Md. Mar. court. 15, 2011); see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983) (noting that quasi-judicial immunity accorded to individuals who play integral part in judicial process); Johnson v. Turner, 125 F.3d 324, 332 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding clerk s office employees, acting as a judge s designee, are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.