Harold Hodge, Jr. v. College of Southern Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02829-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999801198]. Mailed to: C. Hodge, H. Hodge, Jr.. [15-2083]

Appeal: 15-2083

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2083

HAROLD HAMILTON HODGE, JR.; CHANTE’ NICOLE HODGE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
COLLEGE
OF
SOUTHERN
MARYLAND
(CSM);
DR.
BRADLEY
M.
GOTTFRIED, President of CSM; SUE SUBOCZ, VP of Academics
Affairs Math Dept.; LORETTA MCGRATH; RICHARD B. FLEMING;
JEFFREY POTTER; RICHARD WELSH; MATTHEW SCHATZ; RICARDO
“DOE”; CHARLES “DOE”, CSM Computer Tech; CALVERT COUNTY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity; CHARLES
COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity;
STATE OF MARYLAND, Official and Unofficial capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02829-DKC)

Submitted:

March 18, 2016

Decided:

April 22, 2016

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Chante’ N. Hodge, Appellants Pro Se.
Steven David Frenkil, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore,
Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland; Carl N.

Appeal: 15-2083

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Zacarias, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2083

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Harold H. Hodge, Jr., and Chante’ N. Hodge appeal from the
district court’s orders granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
motions of Defendants and dismissing the Hodges’ civil action
and

denying

their

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

59(e)

motion.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

We

have

Accordingly,

district

court.

Hodge v. Coll. of S. Md., No. 8:14-cv-02829-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 3 &
Sept. 4, 2015). *
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

We also reject as without merit the Hodges’ appellate
challenge to the district court’s failure to recuse itself.
See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003).

3