Whidden v. Blakes

Filing 920060803

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7453 DAVID CHARLES WHIDDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JENNA AUBERT, PFC, Badge 189; GARY BLAKES, Sergeant, Badge No. 152, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-751-AW) Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell N. Roberts, III, ROBERTS & WOOD, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel Karp, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: David Charles Whidden appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint that asserted both violations of federal constitutional law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) and claims arising under state law. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm substantially on Whidden v. Blakes, No. CA- the reasoning of the district court.* 04-751-AW (D. Md. July 29, 2005). 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 While the district court dismissed Whidden's state law claims upon a finding that Maryland's statutory immunity for government officials insulated the defendants from liability, we conclude that a consideration of immunity was unnecessary as the defendants did not lack probable cause for their actions. DiPino v. Davis, 729 A.2d 354, 366-67 (Md. 1999). - 3 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?