Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

D. Maryland

Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

DecidedFebruary 21, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-01539

StatusUnknown

This text of Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D. Md. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MATTHEW SCHAEFFER, : Plaintiff, : VS. Civil Action No. CCB-22-1539 BALTIMORE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, □ Defendant. © (Metal Si bebe Meise a x og pode ne 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This case was referred to me to determine whether a default judgment should be entered and/or to make recommendations concerning damages. ECF No. 13. My review of the pleadings reveals that no proper party has been served with process in this action. Plaintiff has served Mr. Clinton Edwards, a supervisor of the Baltimore City Comptroller’s Office, via certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested. ECF No. 9 at 1. The initial order directing Mr. Schaeffer to “submit a summons that is addressed to the Mayor of Baltimore City, or which otherwise complies with the Maryland Rules” appears to have been filed in error. ECF No. 3 at 1. Here, the proper party to be served with process is the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. See Jenkins v. Balt. City Fire Dep’t, 862 F.Supp.2d 427, 441 (D.Md. 2012), aff'd, 519 F.App’x 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (“The Baltimore City Charter explicitly states that the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore “may sue or be sued.””).

For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Motion be DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to refile it at the appropriate time.

Date: =< / ha LOL 5 Ar Co A. David Copperthite United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MATTHEW SCHAEFFER, : Plaintiff, : VS. Civil Action No. CCB-22-1539 BALTIMORE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, □ Defendant. © (Metal Si bebe Meise a x og pode ne 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This case was referred to me to determine whether a default judgment should be entered and/or to make recommendations concerning damages. ECF No. 13. My review of the pleadings reveals that no proper party has been served with process in this action. Plaintiff has served Mr. Clinton Edwards, a supervisor of the Baltimore City Comptroller’s Office, via certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested. ECF No. 9 at 1. The initial order directing Mr. Schaeffer to “submit a summons that is addressed to the Mayor of Baltimore City, or which otherwise complies with the Maryland Rules” appears to have been filed in error. ECF No. 3 at 1. Here, the proper party to be served with process is the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. See Jenkins v. Balt. City Fire Dep’t, 862 F.Supp.2d 427, 441 (D.Md. 2012), aff'd, 519 F.App’x 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (“The Baltimore City Charter explicitly states that the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore “may sue or be sued.””).

For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Motion be DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to refile it at the appropriate time.

Date: =< / ha LOL 5 Ar Co A. David Copperthite United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schaeffer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaeffer-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore-mdd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack