Root v. County of Fairfax, 101013 FED4, 12-2545
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||LOUISE ROOT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia; Paul A. Prados, DAY & JOHNS, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Karen L. Gibbons, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 10, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: September 30, 2013
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01148-CMH-IDD)
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Louise Root appeals from the district court's order dismissing her civil action against the County of Fairfax ("County") seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the alleged taking of Root's personal property for public use. The district court granted the County's motion to dismiss based on res judicata and the statute of limitations. Finding no error in the dismissal, we affirm.
In December 2004, the County seized several of Root's companion animals and petitioned for a hearing on their welfare. After numerous proceedings in the Fairfax County district and circuit courts, it was determined that Root was entitled to return of the animals. In 2008, Root filed a complaint in the Fairfax County Circuit Court against the County and eight individual defendants by whom her animals had been adopted. In the 2008 action, Root sought an injunction ordering the return of the animals to her under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-620 and alleged a Fifth Amendment due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). The County removed the action to federal district court. The district court dismissed Root's § 1983 due process claim against the County and remanded the claim for injunctive relief to the state court. Root appealed the district court's order and the County filed a cross-appeal of the portion of the order remanding the claim for injunctive relief. We affirmed the district court's order, concluding that there was no due process violation and that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
After the case was remanded...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP