Michelle Gross v. Francisco Hopkins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 2023
• Docket: 22-1376
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1376 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1376

MICHELLE GROSS; IVAN COWANS; DAQUAN WELLINGTON; DEOINTE DANIELS; DEVONTE DANIELS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

P.O. FRANCISCO HOPKINS, individually and in his official capacity as a public safety officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:17-cv-03479-BPG)

Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: July 10, 2023

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Keith Altman, LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. James L. Shea, City Solicitor, Matthew O. Bradford, Chief Solicitor, Michael Redmond, Director, Appellate Practice Group, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1376 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs sued defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their constitutional

rights during the execution of a warrant at plaintiff Michelle Gross’s home. The district

court granted summary judgment for defendant. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district

court’s conclusions. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, “constru[ing] the

evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the non-moving party.” Betton v. Belue,

942 F.3d 184, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). Having reviewed the record, we see no reversible error

and thus affirm. 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