Mark Brody v. N. C. State Board of Election, No. 11-1628 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1628 MARK BRODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; GARY O. BARTLETT, as director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cv-00383-MOC-DSC) Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Brody, Appellant Pro Se. CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Appellees. Susan Kelly Nichols, NORTH Raleigh, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Brody appeals the district court s order dismissing his case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Brody brought suit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Director. Gary Bartlett, in his official capacity as Brody alleges that several North Carolina election statutes are in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Brody sought injunctive and declaratory relief against a state official, sovereign immunity applies. the Ex Parte Young exception to Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1637 (2011); DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, we find that the district court erred in dismissing Brody s suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Nonetheless, we affirm the judgment of the district court on alternative evaluation of the reasoning. grounds offered We by are the not limited district court to to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record. (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Brody has presented no cause of action for which relief may be granted. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not 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.