UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2191
KIM Y. EDDINGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SUSAN DEWEY, Executive Director, Virginia
Housing Development Authority,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00506-HEH)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and
John Preston BAILEY, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William B. Pace, W. Alexander Burnett, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond,
Virginia; Marcellinus L. M. B. Slag, LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Godfrey T. Pinn, Jr., HARRELL
& CHAMBLISS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kim Y. Eddings appeals a district court order dismissing her
action challenging the termination by the Virginia Housing
Development Authority (“the VHDA”) of her housing assistance.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Eddings began receiving rental vouchers in approximately 1994
through the Section 8 Existing Housing Rental Assistance Program.
She used the vouchers to rent a home in Richmond, Virginia, where
she lived with her four sons, her husband, and her mother-in-law.
In July 2005, however, Eddings’s husband began serving a two-year
prison sentence. Eddings first informed the VHDA of the change in
the composition of her household during her annual recertification
in January 2006. Because Eddings had failed to notify the VHDA
within 30 days of the change, VHDA informed her that it was
terminating her housing assistance. Eddings requested, and was
granted, an informal hearing regarding the termination. Although
no evidence was presented of any intentional wrongdoing by Eddings
or any benefit received by her in not promptly reporting her
husband’s incarceration, and although the hearing officer made no
finding of intentional wrongdoing or financial benefit by Eddings,
the hearing officer nevertheless upheld the termination.
Eddings subsequently filed suit against Susan Dewey, the
executive director of the VHDA. The action alleges that the
termination violated Eddings’s rights under the applicable federal
2
regulations since the VHDA did not consider that her failure to
timely notify the VHDA of her change in household composition was
unintentional. The suit also claims that the termination violated
Eddings’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the federal
Constitution because the VHDA’s own operating manual prohibited
terminating benefits for an unintentional violation of federal
regulations or VHDA policy. Dewey moved to dismiss Eddings’s suit
for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In
granting Dewey’s motion, the district court concluded that neither
a federal regulation, a federal policy, nor the VHDA’s operating
manual prohibits the VHDA’s termination of benefits for
unintentional violations. See Eddings v. Dewey, 2006 WL 2850646,
at *2-*3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2006).
On appeal, Eddings argues that the district court’s conclusion
was erroneous. Because we find no error in the district court’s
analysis, however, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3