Dawn Clark v. Humane Society of Carroll Cty

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00108-WMN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998800323].. [11-1846]

Appeal: 11-1846

Document: 22

Date Filed: 03/01/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1846

DAWN K. CLARK, On behalf of herself and others similarly
situated; ELIZABETH TIEDEMANN, On behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
HUMANE SOCIETY OF CARROLL COUNTY, INCORPORATED, A Maryland
non-Stock Corporation; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CARROLL
COUNTY, MARYLAND, A Maryland Body Politic; CAROLYN NICKY
RATCLIFF, Director, Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc.,
In her individual capacity; G. MICHAEL KEINER, Officer,
Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc., In his individual
capacity; BRIAN RUPP, Chief of Officers, Humane Society of
Carroll County, Inc., In his individual capacity; MARK
MILLER, Officer, Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc., In
his individual capacity; KAREN BAKER, Officer, Humane
Society of Carroll County, Inc., In her individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00108-WMN)

Submitted:

February 16, 2012

Decided:

March 1, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 11-1846

Document: 22

Date Filed: 03/01/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Steven L. Tiedemann, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellants.
Karpinski, E.I. Cornbrooks, IV, KARPINSKI, COLARESI &
P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Kevin
KARP,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1846

Document: 22

Date Filed: 03/01/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Dawn
district

K.

court’s

Clark
order

and

Elizabeth

granting

Tiedemann

Defendants’

Fed.

appeal
R.

Civ.

the
P.

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil
rights action.

Appellants argue on appeal that the court erred

in dismissing their claims for violations of the Fourth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments resulting from the assessment against
them

of

fines

in

notices

of

violations

issued

pursuant

section 81-16(B) of the Code of Carroll County, Maryland.

to
We

affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal,

“focus[ing]

complaint.”
2008).
“a

only

on

the

legal

sufficiency

of

the

Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state

plausible

claim

for

relief”

that

“permit[s]

the

court

to

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based upon
“its judicial experience and common sense.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
Upon review of Appellants’ briefs, we conclude that
they fail to present their arguments that the district court
erred

in

dismissing

their

claims

alleging

violations

of

the

Fourth and Sixth Amendments in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9)(A)

(“[T]he

[appellant’s]

argument . . . must

contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them,
3

Appeal: 11-1846

Document: 22

Date Filed: 03/01/2012

Page: 4 of 4

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on
which

the

arguments

appellant
waived.

relies.”).
Wahi

v.

Accordingly,

Charleston

Area

we

Med.

deem

these

Ctr.,

Inc.,

562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009).
Appellants also argue that the district court erred in
dismissing their challenge on Fourteenth Amendment grounds to
the propriety of the process afforded to them to challenge the
fines assessed in the notices of violation.
review

of

the

record

that

this

claim

was

We conclude after
properly

because Appellants lack standing to raise it.
Mathews,

465

U.S.

728,

738

(1984);

Star

dismissed

See Heckler v.

Scientific,

Inc.

v.

Beales, 278 F.3d 339, 358 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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

4