Collision Towing and Auto Body, LLC v. Prince George's County, MD

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 19, 2026
• Docket: 25-2114
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2114 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/19/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2114

COLLISION TOWING AND AUTO BODY, LLC; CORNELIUS WOODS,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Ajmel Ahsen Quereshi, Magistrate Judge. (8:24-cv-00603-AAQ)

ARGUED: May 5, 2026 Decided: May 19, 2026

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Jordan David Howlette, JUSTLY PRUDENT, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Andrew Jensen Murray, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Largo, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Anthony D. Jones, County Attorney, Stephen J. Williams, Principal Deputy County Attorney, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Largo, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2114 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/19/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from the District of Maryland, plaintiffs Collision Towing and Auto

Body, LLC, and Cornelius Woods (collectively “plaintiffs”), challenge an adverse August

2025 award of summary judgment to the defendant, Prince George’s County, Maryland

(the “County”). See Collision Towing and Auto Body, LLC v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md.,

No. 8:24-cv-00603 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2025), ECF No. 35 (the “Summary Judgment

Ruling”). 1 Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Summary Judgment Ruling erred in

entering summary judgment in favor of the County on the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment

regulatory takings claim, pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Fifth Amendment

regulatory takings claim”). 2 By that constitutional takings claim, the plaintiffs allege that

the County — in exercising its police powers to abate a public nuisance on a parcel of real

property located in the County and then owned by the plaintiffs — contravened their Fifth

Amendment right to just compensation for deprivation of property.

1 In April 2024 — and otherwise in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) — all parties to these civil proceedings “voluntarily consented to have [a magistrate judge] conduct all further proceedings in this case.” See Collision Towing and Auto Body, LLC v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., No. 8:24-cv-00603 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2025), ECF No. 18. 2 We observe that, in the underlying proceedings, the plaintiffs alleged three additional claims. That is, (1) the County treated plaintiff Woods differently from similarly situated individuals, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; (2) the County violated the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Maryland Constitution; and, alternatively, (3) the County violated Woods’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Those three claims were also resolved against the plaintiffs by the Summary Judgment Ruling. On appeal, the plaintiffs — as their opening brief recites — “focus[] solely on the Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim.” See Br. of Appellants 1. Our analysis is thereby limited to that claim.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2114 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/19/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., T.H.E. Ins. Co. v.

Davis, 54 F.4th 805, 818 (4th Cir. 2022); Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir.

2010). Summary judgment is appropriate when — viewing the facts in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party — the movant shows that “‘there is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” See

FDIC v. Cashion, 720 F.3d 169, 173 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

In these circumstances, having carefully assessed the record on appeal — as well as

the various appellate submissions of the parties, along with the able argument presented by

the lawyers in Richmond — we discern no reversible error. Rather, for the reasons well-

articulated in the district court’s thorough Summary Judgment Ruling, we are of opinion

that the court cogently analyzed the parties’ contentions and correctly awarded summary

judgment to the County on the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim.

Pursuant to the foregoing, we are satisfied to affirm the challenged judgment of the

district court.

AFFIRMED