Albert Bierman, Sr. v. Moe Davenport

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 22-1939
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1939

ALBERT J. BIERMAN, SR.,

Plaintiff − Appellant,

v.

MOE D. DAVENPORT, WILLIAM D. AMOSS, HARFORD COUNTY

Defendants – Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:22−cv−00012-CCB)

Submitted: November 9, 2023 Decided: March 4, 2024

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Walter W. Green, GREEN LAW, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for Appellant. David M. Wyand, Brooke A. Hutchins, ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Albert Bierman appeals from the district court’s August 16, 2022 order granting

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

This appeal concerns Albert Bierman’s application to sell an easement on his land

to the Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation (“MALPF”)—a Maryland

program designed to “preserve the State’s agricultural land and economy by acquiring

‘agriculture easements.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., 68 A.3d 843,

845–46 (Md. 2013). Bierman alleges that he applied to sell an easement to MALPF, but

Harford County employees Moe Davenport and William Amoss made alterations to his

application that caused MALPF to deny it. Bierman sued Davenport, Amoss, and Harford

County, asserting several claims arising out of these allegedly “illegal alterations.” J.A.

13–25.

The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the changes

were either permissible or immaterial. J.A. 106–113. And the court chose to dismiss the

complaint with prejudice.

We agree with the district court’s reasoning. And we cannot say that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice. SAS Assocs. 1, LLC v. City Council

for City of Chesapeake, 91 F.4th 715, 722 n.1 (4th Cir. 2024) (finding no abuse of

discretion when the plaintiff “never asked for leave to amend below and given the

infirmities in their complaint any amendment would have been futile”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bierman v. Davenport, No.

CCB-22-12, 2022 WL 3369574 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2022). We dispense with oral argument

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED