B.G. v. Sam Malhotra

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-02663-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000030985].. [16-1837]

Appeal: 16-1837

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1837

B.G., By Her Next Friend B.G.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAM MALHOTRA, In his Official Capacity as Secretary of the
Maryland Department of Human Resources; PETER BUESGENS, In
His Official Capacity as Director of the Worcester County
Department of Social Services; TERESA WALLER, In Her
Individual and Official Capacity Worcester County Department
of Social Services; SHAE NOTTINGHAM, In Her Individual and
Official Capacity Worcester County Department of Social
Services; KIMBERLY LINTON, In Her Individual and Official
Capacity Worcester County Department of Social Services,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-02663-RDB)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1837

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Robert McCaig, LEGAL AID BUREAU, INC., Salisbury, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ann M. Sheridan,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1837

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
B.G.,
court’s

by

order

her

next

denying

friend,

relief

B.G.,

on

her

appeals

42

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 1983

(2012)

complaint challenging a state court child custody proceeding.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

B.G. v. Malhotra, No. 1:15-cv-02663-RDB (D. Md. June 20,

2016).

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

3