Reginald Liles v. Brittany Edwards

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7006 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7006

REGINALD M. LILES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRITTANY P. EDWARDS, Assistant District Attorney sued in their individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00672-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald M. Liles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7006 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald M. Liles appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and dismissing Liles’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. This court reviews

de novo a dismissal of a complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b). Shaw v. Foreman, 59 F.4th

121, 126 (4th Cir. 2023). We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Liles’

complaint. Although Liles’ claim against the Defendant Assistant District Attorney may

not necessarily be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), any claim against

the Defendant is frivolous because it is barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. “A

prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions intimately associated with

the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467,

470 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. * Liles v. Edwards, No. 1:23-cv-00672-TDS-LPA

(M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* See Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizing this court’s authority to affirm for any reason appearing on the record).