Kenneth Fitch v. State of Maryland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-2135
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2135

KENNETH FITCH; PHYLIS REINARD; DEBORAH HEIM; MARY FRYE; ALAN RIVKIN; HOWARD KILIAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

MICHAEL WAYNE BRIDGETT; DEBORAH MONROE; DEBORAH GARLITZ; MARK HENRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; WES MOORE, Governor of Maryland; HELEN T. GRADY, Secretary of Budget and Management,

Defendants - Appellees,

DERECK E. DAVIS, State Treasurer; BROOKE E. LIERMAN, State Comptroller; SRPS BOARD OF TRUSTEES PENSION SYSTEM, c/o Office of Attorney General,

Defendants.

No. 24-2266

KENNETH FITCH; PHYLIS REINARD; DEBORAH HEIM; MARY FRYE; ALAN RIVKIN; HOWARD KILIAN, USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 6

MICHAEL WAYNE BRIDGETT; DEBORAH MONROE; DEBORAH GARLITZ; MARK HENRY,

STATE OF MARYLAND; HELEN T. GRADY, Secretary of Budget and Management; WES MOORE, Governor of Maryland,

SRPS BOARD OF TRUSTEES PENSION SYSTEM, c/o Office of Attorney General; DERECK E. DAVIS, State Treasurer; BROOKE E. LIERMAN, State Comptroller,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-02817-PJM)

Submitted: May 9, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Deborah A. Holloway Hill, LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH HILL, LLC, Cockeysville, Maryland, for Appellants. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General of Maryland, Ryan R. Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 6

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 4 of 6

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Kenneth Fitch, Phylis Reinard, Deborah Heim, Mary

Frye, Alan Rivkin, and Howard Killian (“the Fitch Plaintiffs”), all retired employees of the

State of Maryland government, appeal two orders of the district court: (1) an order

awarding summary judgment to the defendant-appellees 1 on the Fitch Plaintiffs’ claims

related to Maryland’s discontinuation of certain prescription drug benefits for state

employees and retirees (No. 23-2135), and (2) an order denying the Fitch Plaintiffs’ motion

for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (No. 24-2266). After thoroughly

reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm both orders.

The district court awarded summary judgment to the State on the Fitch Plaintiffs’

claims based on our prior decision in this litigation, AFSCME Md. Council 3 v. Maryland,

61 F.4th 143 (4th Cir. 2023). In that decision, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of

similar claims brought on behalf of current state employees. Id. at 145-46. We held that

the relevant Maryland statutes “do not create a contract between the State of Maryland and

its employees or retirees” with respect to the prescription drug benefits at issue. Id. at 151.

In these appeals, the Fitch Plaintiffs assert many reasons why the district court

should not have followed our earlier decision. We are satisfied, however, that the district

court was obliged to do so and that the district court correctly awarded summary judgment

1 The defendant-appellees are the State of Maryland, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, and Maryland Secretary of Budget and Management Helen T. Grady. We refer to the defendant-appellees collectively as “the State.”

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 5 of 6

to the State on the Fitch Plaintiffs’ claims. 2 See Hannah P. v. Haines, 80 F.4th 236, 246

(4th Cir. 2023) (explaining law-of-the-case doctrine); Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348,

356 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining standard of review for summary judgment award);

McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“[O]ne panel

cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel.”).

As for the district court’s order denying the Fitch Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion,

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Fitch

Plaintiffs neither established extraordinary circumstances justifying relief nor presented a

viable equal protection claim premised on Maryland’s passage of the Access to Care Act,

2024 Md. Laws Ch. 841 (S.B. 705). 3 See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ross, 74 F.4th 186, 190

(4th Cir. 2023) (reviewing denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motion for abuse of discretion), cert.

denied, 144 S. Ct. 693 (2024); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2011) (en

banc) (explaining requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), including that movant show

“extraordinary circumstances” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2 After we issued our decision in the prior appeal, the Fitch Plaintiffs asserted a fraud claim in the district court in response to the State’s motion for summary judgment. The district court ruled that any such claim would be futile for two independent reasons, and the Fitch Plaintiffs fail to contest those reasons on appeal. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 The Fitch Plaintiffs alleged other claims in their Rule 60(b)(6) motion, but they mention those claims only in passing on appeal. We thus do not address them. See Grayson O Co., 856 F.3d at 316.

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2135 Doc: 46 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 6 of 6

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders awarding summary judgment to

the State and denying the Fitch Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion. 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