Demetric Gray Pearson v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 4th Cir. 2005 , this court…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6039
DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, Chairperson of Parole and
Probation; WILLIAM SONDERVAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
03-1603-RDB)
Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetric Gray Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*The district court dismissed Pearson’s ADA claim based on
Eleventh Amendment immunity and did not reach the merits of the
claim. However, in Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George
Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005), this court ruled that
Congress effectively and intentionally abrogated the States’
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under Title II of the ADA.
Thus, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Pearson from bringing suit
against Maryland prison officials. Nevertheless, because Pearson
did not state a claim under the ADA, summary judgment for the
Defendants was proper. We offer no criticism of the district
judge, who resolved this issue without the benefit of our decision
in Constantine.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Demetric Pearson appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his civil rights complaint. On appeal, Pearson
challenges only the denial of relief with respect to his claims
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order on the ground that Pearson failed to state a claim under the
ADA.* See Pearson v. Cushwa, No. CA-03-1603-RDB (D. Md. Dec. 20,
2004). 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

-- 2 of 2 --