# Brody v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 15, 2011 · 458 F. App'x 231

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/619007

## Case

- **Full name:** Mark BRODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Gary O. Bartlett, as Director, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 15, 2011
- **Citations:** 458 F. App'x 231
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Agee, Keenan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/619007

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/619007. Public record. Not legal advice.