Harold Hodge, Jr. v. Douglas Gansler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01949-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246422]. Mailed to: Harold Hodge, Jr.. [13-1994]

Appeal: 13-1994

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1994

HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General, Maryland Department
of State Police; CHRISTOPHER ESNES; LT. RANDY L. STEPHENS;
STATE OF MARYLAND; CALVERT COUNTY, (local government).

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:13-cv-01949-AW)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1994

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Harold

H.

Hodge,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) for failure to state a
claim on which relief could be granted, confining his appeal to
the district court’s dismissal of his claim against Defendant
Christopher Esnes for racial profiling 1 in connection with a
traffic stop.

We affirm. 2

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a
claim

for

granted.

failure

to

state

a

claim

on

which

relief

may

be

Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248

(4th Cir. 2005).

Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to

be construed liberally, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151
(4th Cir. 1978), his complaint must contain factual allegations
sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative

1

Although there exists no federal claim for “racial
profiling,” in adherence to our obligation of construing the
filings of a pro se party liberally, Gordon, 574 F.2d at 1151,
we construe Hodge’s claim as one for a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

In his informal appellate brief, Hodge does not present
any specific arguments challenging as error the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint as to his remaining claims and the
remaining
Defendants.
Accordingly,
Hodge
has
forfeited
appellate review of these issues.
4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4
(4th Cir. 2004).

2

Appeal: 13-1994

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

level” and that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.”
(2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570

This “plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to

demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.”

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193

(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

He must

articulate facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate he has
stated a claim entitling him to relief.

Id.

To state a claim under § 1983 for a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff
must allege facts sufficient to show that he has been treated
differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and
the unequal treatment resulted from intentional or purposeful
discrimination.

Morrison

(4th Cir.

2001).

articulate

facts

v.

Hodge’s
demonstrating

Garraghty,
complaint,
that

a

239

F.3d

however,

racially

648,
does

654
not

discriminatory

intent or purpose was a factor in Esnes’ decisions to stop his
vehicle, to issue a citation for his failure to possess a valid
change-of-address card, or to issue a warning ticket for his
failure to yield the right-of-way.

Accordingly, as Hodge did

not state a plausible claim under § 1983 for an equal protection
violation,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

order.

Gansler, No. 8:13-cv-01949-AW (D. Md. July 18, 2013).

3

Hodge

v.

Appeal: 13-1994

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4