Aleksandr Stoyanov v. Howard County, Maryland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2024
• Docket: 24-1168
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1168

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; CALVIN BALL, Howard County Executive; DEBORAH BARACCO, Executive Secretary, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Head of the Animal Control Division; OFFICER S. FOX, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Police Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Howard County employees participating in conspiracy,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00927-JRR)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’

motion to dismiss Stoyanov’s civil claims and denying Stoyanov’s motion for sanctions.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Stoyanov failed to plausibly allege

cognizable claims against Defendants. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

(2009) (holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[]

a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility

of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense”). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s dismissal order, albeit on alternate grounds. * Stoyanov v. Howard

Cnty., Md., No. 1:23-cv-00927-JRR (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2024). 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 Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing this court’s authority to “affirm . . . on any ground apparent on the record”).