Harry Lawrence Quigley appeals the district courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and awarding summary judgment to Appellees on Quigleys Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Quigley also appeals the district courts subsequent order dismissing with prejudice his claims challenging the constitutionality of W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-7-11 (West, Westlaw through 2020 legislation) and W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 10. As explained below, we affirm with one modification.
Beginning with Quigleys claim challenging the constitutionality of § 61-7-11, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
*
Quigley v. City of Huntington, No. 3:17-cv-01906, 2020 WL 1527792 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 2020). Furthermore, because Quigleys challenge to the district courts ruling on his Fourth Amendment claim rests entirely on his meritless argument that § 61-7-11 is unconstitutional, we are satisfied that Quigley has failed to identify any reversible error in that ruling. See Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 38, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979).
With respect to Quigleys claim contesting the constitutionality of W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 10, we conclude that Quigley lacks Article III standing to pursue such a claim. See Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (explaining that plaintiff must demonstrate Article III standing for each claim); Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C., 953 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir. 2020) (reciting elements of Article III standing). More specifically, Quigley has failed to demonstrate that any injury that he suffered as a result of W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 10 is “fairly traceable” to Appellees’ conduct. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, this claim should have been dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Assn v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm as modified to reflect a dismissal without prejudice solely as to Quigleys claim challenging the constitutionality of W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 10. We also deny Quigleys motion for declaratory judgment. 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 AS MODIFIED
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. We agree with the district court that Quigley has not demonstrated that § 61-7-11 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. See United States v. Moriello, 980 F.3d 924, 931-32 (4th Cir. 2020) (summarizing vagueness doctrine). We also conclude that Quigleys overbreadth challenge to § 61-7-11 is not cognizable. See Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609-10, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004) (specifying types of overbreadth challenges that Supreme Court has recognized).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.