Jeffrey Ledergerber v. Corporal Justin Blubaugh

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-2193
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2193 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2193

JEFFREY ANDREW LEDERGERBER; JAMES FRANKLIN BAKER; EDWARD THOMAS WOLF; CHARLOTTE FREDA WOLF,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CORPORAL JUSTIN L. BLUBAUGH, Individually and in his capacity as Harford County’s Deputy Sheriff; SHERIFF JEFFREY R. GAHLER, Individually and in his capacity as Harford County’s Sheriff; STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND; HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-01208-ABA)

Submitted: April 17, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2193 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

ON BRIEF: David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Kirstin Lustila, Assistant Attorney General, Alexis Gbemudu, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland; David M. Wyand, G. Adam Ruther, ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2193 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Jeffrey Andrew Ledergerber, James Franklin Baker, Edward Thomas

Wolf, and Charlotte Freda Wolf appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on their

civil complaint raising claims under Maryland law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the

magistrate judge’s order denying their motion to reconsider. * We review de novo a grant

of summary judgment, viewing “the facts in the light most favorable to” the nonmoving

parties and “drawing all reasonable inferences in [their] favor.” Dean v. Jones, 984 F.3d

295, 301 (4th Cir. 2021). When reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, “we

consider each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties

deserves judgment as a matter of law” and “resolve all factual disputes and any competing,

rational inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing that motion.” Defs. of

Wildlife v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 762 F.3d 374, 392 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

marks omitted). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion to reconsider. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The magistrate judge did

not err in finding Appellee Justin L. Blubaugh was entitled to summary judgment on

Appellants’ Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Blubaugh is immune from

§ 1983 claims arising from his grand jury testimony, see Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356,

369 (2012), and the evidence forecast on summary judgment did not create a genuine

dispute as to whether he fabricated evidence or misled the prosecution, see id. at 370 n.1;

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2193 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Harris v. Town of S. Pines, 110 F.4th 633, 643 (4th Cir. 2024). Nor did the magistrate

judge err in determining that Appellants’ remaining claims failed for similar reasons as this

Fourth Amendment claim. Finally, we discern no abuse of discretion in the magistrate

judge’s decision to retain jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims. See PEM Entities

LLC v. County of Franklin, 57 F.4th 178, 184 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s orders. 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