Michael Chin; Sweet Nspicy Foods, Incorporated v. Wilhelm

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1428
MICHAEL CHIN; SWEET N SPICY FOODS,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
MICHAEL V. WILHELM; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Drug Enforcement Administration; STATE OF
MARYLAND, via its agency the City of Baltimore
Police,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; THE BALTIMORE
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:02-cv-01551-CCB; 1:04-cv-04054-CCB)
Submitted: December 6, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Walter L. Blair, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland; C.
William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

*Appellants’ other claims were disposed of by the district
court prior to its resolution of the Bivens and FTCA claims which
are at issue on this appeal. Appellants do not appeal from these
earlier rulings.
3
PER CURIAM:
Michael Chin and Sweet N Spicy Foods, Inc. brought this
action, alleging claims under, inter alia, Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). * The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Defendants Michael V. Wilhelm and the
United States of America, and Chin and Sweet N Spicy now appeal.
The district court found that Wilhelm was entitled to summary
judgment on Appellants’ Bivens claims because he did not violate
Chin’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court further found
that the United States was entitled to summary judgment on
Appellants’ claims under the FTCA because Appellants failed to
support an allegation of malice under Maryland law and failed to
create an issue of triable fact on their claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Finally, the district court
quashed a subpoena issued by Appellants to a Maryland state judge,
concluding that the judge’s testimony would not aid the development
of facts relevant to Appellants’ case.
We have reviewed de novo the record in this case, and we find
no error in the district court’s entry of summary judgment. We
further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion

-- 3 of 4 --

4
by quashing the subpoena. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on
the reasoning of the district court. See 1:02-cv-1551-CCB (D. Md.
Mar. 24, 2006). 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

-- 4 of 4 --