Mathis v. McDonough et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 2/25/2016. (c/m 2/26/2016 nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JERRY 1. MATHIS

*
*
*
*
*
*

v.
C. ANTHONY MUSE, ET AL.

Civil No. - JFM-13-2597

******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Jerry 1. Mathis, brought this action against various defendants. The sole
remaining defendant, C. Anthony Muse, has filed a motion for summary judgment after the
completion of discovery. Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, has filed an opposition to the
motion. The motion will be granted.
No useful purpose would be served by restating the events that gave rise to this litigation.
The remaining material fact is that the record establishes that Deputy Berryman was acting
pursuant to her own line of command and not in response to any direction by Muse as a senator
of the State of Maryland. Thus, nothing done by Muse was "under color of state law" as
required by 42 U.S.c. ~1983, under which this action is brought.
I note that to the extent that plaintiff's opposition is based upon a newspaper article, what
is said in the article is hearsay evidence and would not be admissible at trial. Thus, it may not be
considered on a motion for summary judgment. Maryland Highways Contractors Ass 'n v.
Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246,1251 (4th Cir. 1991).
I also note that this case is entirely unlike Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, (4th Cir.
2003), upon which plaintiff relies. In Rossignol the Fourth Circuit held that sheriffs deputies
acted under the color of state law when they seized newspapers critical)lf' their fitness in office.

-Yo
1

There is no evidence in this case that Deputy Berryman seized the sample ballot because it was
in some way critical of Muse.
A separate order granting Muse's motion is being entered herewith.

Date:

o/J-s'j 16.

J!d~"'/\

<

Frederick Motz
United States District Judge