CHANTE’ N. HODGE, Mrs.; HAROLD H. HODGE, JR. v. St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1982
CHANTE’ N. HODGE, Mrs.; HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
B.S.H.; B.N.H.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; THOMAS HEDDERICH,
First Class Detective; WILLIAM RAY, Detective; UNKNOWN
DETECTIVE OR SHERIFF (at door first); CALVERT COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE; R. COX, Deputy I.D. 4064; RICKY THOMAS,
Lt.; CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE SPECIAL OPERATIONS
TEAM,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-02522-PJM)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Chante’ N. Hodge, Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellants Pro Se.
Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Chante’ N. Hodge and Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeal the
district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action
and denying the Hodges’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in Defendants’ favor. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. St. Mary’s Cnty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 8:08-cv-02522-PJM (D. Md. June 22, 2009).
We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
denial of the Hodges’ Rule 59(e) motion and affirm that order.
See Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,
402-03 (4th Cir. 1998). 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 of 3 --