648 F. App'x 369
4th Cir.
2016

Jay Carper v. Clay County Board of Health, the Clay County Commission, Linkinogger, Peter Triplett, Gregory G. Skinner, Laura S. Rhodes, Andy Wadell, and Delta Communications, LLC

No. 15-1894

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

May 17, 2016

369

Linkinogger; Peter Triplett, Individually and as an Employee of the Clay County Clerk‘s Office, Defendants-Appellees, and Gregory G. Skinner, Senior Assistant Attorney General, State of West Virginia; Laura S. Rhodes, Director, The West Virginia Board of Examiners for Registered Professional Nurses; Andy Wadell, Individually and As Poster and Publisher of the website, www.clayberry.org; Delta Communications, LLC, as the Owner and Operator of the Newspaper Known as “The Communicator” and the Owner and Operator of the Website, www.clayberry.org, Defendants.

Hiram C. Lewis, IV, Lewislaw, Procious, West Virginia, for Appellant. Wendy E. Greve, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay Carper appeals the district court‘s order granting summary judgment to Defendants—the Clay County Board of Health, the Clay County Commission, and certain current and former employees of these entities—on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We agree with the district court that Carper has not supported his claims against Defendants because he presented no more than a scintilla of evidence that Defendants publicly disclosed the reason for his termination and that the allegations resulting in his termination were false. See Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s judgment. Carper v. Clay Cty. Bd. of Health, No. 2:14-cv-12114 (S.D.W.Va. July 9, 2015). 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.

Read the detailed case summary