UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2330
B. K. CRUEY, PC; BILLY K. CRUEY,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
R. J. KIRBY, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff, and as
agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff, and Montgomery County,
Virginia; D. L. CONNER, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff,
and as agent for J. T. Whitt, Sheriff, and Montgomery
County, Virginia; J. T. WHITT, Individually, and as Sheriff,
Montgomery County, Virginia, and as agent for Montgomery
County, Virginia; BRUCE W. NESTER; UNKNOWN SUPERVISORS AND
DEPUTIES, Montgomery County Sheriff's Department; RICKY LEE
EARLY; ERIC NESTER; ROGER DALE NESTER; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY,
VIRGINIA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STEPHEN C. HUFF, JR.; ELINOR E. WILLIAMS, as Magistrate and
Agent for the County of Montgomery, Virginia; KAREN SUE
GARNAND, Magistrate and Agent for the County of Montgomery,
Virginia; HOWARD M. GREGORY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00516-gec)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 8, 2011
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy K. Cruey, B. K. CRUEY, PC, Shawsville, Virginia, for
Appellants. Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C.,
Salem, Virginia; Matthew E. Kelley, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Billy K. Cruey and the law firm B. K. Cruey, PC,
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing certain
Defendants, granting summary judgment to other Defendants,
denying injunctive relief to Cruey, and declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in Cruey and the
law firm’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. On
appeal, Appellants question whether the district court erred in
dismissing their § 1983 claims as to certain Defendants, denying
injunctive relief, and refusing to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over certain of the state-law claims. However,
because Appellants fail to support their claims in accordance
with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he [appellant’s]
argument . . . must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and
the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and
parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”), we deem
the claims waived. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.,
562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3