Richard Martin v. Montgomery County Police

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [999704276-2]; denying Motion to seal [999704260-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02431-GJH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999719923].. [15-2140]

Appeal: 15-2140

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2140

RICHARD MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; CORPORAL FRANK CORN;
POLICE OFFICER MATT LYNCH; POLICE OFFICER HEATH BERRY;
POLICE OFFICER LUCAS BALTZ,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-02431-GJH)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 17, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2140

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard

Martin

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(2012).
On

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
appeal,

conclusion

that

Martin
his

challenges

claims

were

the

untimely.

district
Martin’s

court’s
claims,

whether brought under state law or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), were
subject to, at longest, a three-year statute of limitations.
See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general
civil statute of limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.
§ 5-105 (2013) (actions for assault and defamation); Owens v.
Balt. City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir.
2014) (§ 1983 claims), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1893 (2015).
While Martin’s malicious prosecution claim has not yet accrued,
this claim is barred by his inability to meet the favorable
termination requirement.
(Md. 2000).

See Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56, 59

Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged

in the complaint demonstrate that his remaining claims accrued,
at the latest, by the time he was released from prison, and the
limitations period was not subject to tolling.

See A Soc’y

Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2011)
(accrual under § 1983); Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 43
A.3d 1029, 1034-34, 1039-41 (Md. 2012) (discussing accrual and
tolling under state law); see also Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Raleigh,
2

Appeal: 15-2140

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

947 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (4th Cir. 1991) (describing continuing
violations

doctrine).

Finally,

because

Martin’s

claims

were

properly dismissed, the district court committed no error in
denying as moot Martin’s request to file electronically.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3