Eric Rich v. Daniel Hersl

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 23-6775
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6775 Doc: 83 Filed: 12/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6775

ERIC RICH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

OFFICER DANIEL HERSL, Individually and as a police officer for Baltimore City Police Dept.,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Albert David Copperthite, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-00488-ADC)

Argued: December 9, 2025 Decided: December 19, 2025

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Christopher S. Edwards, WARD & SMITH, P.A., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. James Arba Henry Corley, CITY OF BALTIMORE LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Ebony M. Thompson, City Solicitor, Michael Redmond, Director, Appellate Practice, CITY OF BALTIMORE LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6775 Doc: 83 Filed: 12/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Eric Deandre Rich appeals from an adverse judgment of July 2023, entered

in the District of Maryland in favor of defendant Daniel Hersl, a former officer with the

Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force. Specifically, the district court

resolved to award summary judgment to Hersl on Rich’s Fourth Amendment claims for

illegal arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See

Rich v. Hersl, No. 1:20-cv-00488 (D. Md. July 20, 2023), ECF Nos. 107 & 108.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See 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).

Having carefully assessed the record — as well as the various appellate submissions of the

parties and the argument presented in Richmond — we discern no reversible error.

Accordingly, we are content to affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED