# Hodge v. Board of County Commissioners

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 4, 2011

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/206035

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 4, 2011
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/206035

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2290

HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; BARBARA STINNETT,
Commissioner, in her individual capacity and official
capacity; LINDA KELLEY, Commissioner, in her individual
capacity and official capacity; WILSON PARRAN,
Commissioner, in his individual capacity and official
capacity; ROBERT B. RIDDLE, Judge, in his individual
capacity and official capacity; C. BUCKIE DOWELL, in his
individual capacity and official capacity; JAMES CARPENTER,
in his individual capacity and official capacity; STATE OF
MARYLAND; SMILEY, Police Officer, in his individual
capacity and official capacity; JOHN DOE 1-2, Unknown
police officers, in their individual capacity and official
capacity; CALVERT COUNTY (local government); GERALD CLARK,
Commissioner, in his individual capacity and official
capacity also known as Jerry,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10-
cv-02396-RWT)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006) for failure to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. Bd. of Cnty.

Comm’rs, No. 8:10-cv-02396-RWT (D. Md. filed Oct. 14, 2010 &

entered Oct. 15, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/206035. Public record. Not legal advice.