Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 2011
Docket10-2290
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners (Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2290

HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BARBARA STINNETT, Commissioner, in her individual capacity and official capacity; LINDA KELLEY, Commissioner, in her individual capacity and official capacity; WILSON PARRAN, Commissioner, in his individual capacity and official capacity; ROBERT B. RIDDLE, Judge, in his individual capacity and official capacity; C. BUCKIE DOWELL, in his individual capacity and official capacity; JAMES CARPENTER, in his individual capacity and official capacity; STATE OF MARYLAND; SMILEY, Police Officer, in his individual capacity and official capacity; JOHN DOE 1-2, Unknown police officers, in their individual capacity and official capacity; CALVERT COUNTY (local government); GERALD CLARK, Commissioner, in his individual capacity and official capacity also known as Jerry,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10- cv-02396-RWT)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006) for failure to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. Bd. of Cnty.

Comm’rs, No. 8:10-cv-02396-RWT (D. Md. filed Oct. 14, 2010 &

entered Oct. 15, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-board-of-county-commissioners-ca4-2011.