Claude Holland v. State of Maryland


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cv-01649-AMD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998457579] [09-1815]

Download PDF
Claude Holland v. State of Maryland Doc. 0 Case: 09-1815 Document: 26 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1815 CLAUDE HOLLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LORI HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; R. HUNTER NELMS; ROBERT VAN METER, Major, Defendants - Appellees, and WICOMICO COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06cv-01649-AMD) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: November 2, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Case: 09-1815 Document: 26 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 2 Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, H. Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 09-1815 Document: 26 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Claude Holland filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding his termination from the Wicomico County Sheriff's Department. The district court denied relief on both claims. On appeal, we affirmed the denial of Holland's First Amendment claim but vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings regarding Holland's Fourteenth Amendment reputational claim made under the Supreme Court's opinion in Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), and related cases. See Holland v. Maryland, 307 Fed. App'x 746, 2009 WL 122575 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 08-1308). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that Holland's reputational claim failed because the statements to the press regarding Holland were true. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holland v. Maryland, No. 1:06-cv-01649-AMD (D. Md. July We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional 2, 2009). legal before contentions the court would process. AFFIRMED 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?