Darrell Harris v. Police Nathan Ulmer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying as moot Motion for stay pending appeal [999860051-2]; denying Motion to strike [999869219-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-02470-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999930678]. Mailed to: Darrell P. Harris. [16-1592]

Appeal: 16-1592

Doc: 19

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1592

DARRELL P. HARRIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
POLICE NATHAN ULMER, in both his official and individual
capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City Police
Department; SERGEANT NATALIE PRESTON, in both her official
and individual capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City
Police Department,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY W. BATTS, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Baltimore City
Police Department; 6 UNKNOWN POLICE & K9 DOG, in both their
official and individual capacity as a Police of the
Baltimore City Police Department; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE CITY; STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, in both their
official and individual capacities; GOVERNOR AND THE STATE
OF MARYLAND; GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, in both his official
and individual capacity as Governor,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-02470-JFM)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Appeal: 16-1592

Doc: 19

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell P. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Frederic Nelson Smalkin,
Jr., Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1592

Doc: 19

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darrell

P.

Harris

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting Defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims
against

them.

We

reversible error.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we deny as moot Harris’ motion

for stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal, deny
Appellees’ motion to strike Harris’ motion for stay, and affirm
the district court’s order.

Harris v. Ulmer, No. 1:14-cv-02470-

JFM

2016,

(D.

dispense

Md.

filed

with

contentions

are

oral

May

6,

argument

adequately

entered

because

presented

in

May

the
the

9,

facts

2016).

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3