Hodge v. Calvert County

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2138

HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.; CHANTE’ N. HODGE, Mrs.,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

CALVERT COUNTY, (local government); STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND STATE TREASURER; ST. MARY'S COUNTY, (local government); TIMOTHY K. CAMERON, Head Sheriff in his individual and public official capacity; THOMAS HEDDERICH, Detective, in his individual and public official capacity; WILLIAM RAY, Detective, in his individual and public official capacity; UNKNOWN SWAT TEAM AND POLICE MEMBERS, John Does in their individual and public official capacities; MIKE EVANS, Head Sheriff, in his individual and public official capacity; RICKEY COX, Deputy, Detective, in his individual and public official capacity; RICKY THOMAS, Lieutenant, in his individual and public official capacity; SUTTON, Deputy or Sheriff, in his individual and public official capacity; CANNING, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and public official capacity; FENTON, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and public official capacity; UNKNOWN (SOT), SWAT TEAM MEMBER OF THE CLAVERT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, John Does in their individual and public official capacities; ROBERT B. RIDDLE, Judge, in his individual capacity and public official capacity; CALVERT DETENTION CENTER; SHERIFF AND DEPUTY AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, last name to be Fenton in his individual and public official capacity; SHERIFF AND DEPUTY SUTTON, in his individual and public official capacity,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-02252-PJM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Chante’ N. Hodge, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., and Chante’ N. Hodge appeal the

district court’s order dismissing their civil action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. Calvert County,

No. 8:09-cv-02252-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2009). 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