The opinion
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Susan Kelly Nichols, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Gary Bartlett, in his official capacity as
Director. 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, the Ex Parte Young exception to
sovereign immunity applies. 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 reasoning. “We are not limited to
evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to
support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent
from the record.” United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519
(4th Cir. 2005). 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