Patrick J. Richardson, individually v. SEXUAL ASSAULT/SPOUSE ABUSE RESOURCE CENTER, INC., (SARC) of Harford County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2135
PATRICK J. RICHARDSON, individually, and as guardian for
the minor children P.F.R. and M.E.R. and M.C.R. and D.J.R.
and B.P.R.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SEXUAL ASSAULT/SPOUSE ABUSE RESOURCE CENTER, INC., (SARC) of
Harford County; LUIZA CAIAZZO-NUTTER, Individually and in
her capacity as Executive Director of SARC; STEPHANIE
POWERS, individually & in her capacity as an employee of
SARC; JOHN DOE, 1 through 50 individually; JANE DOE, 1
through 50 individually,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
UNITED OF CENTRAL MARYLAND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-03404-MJG)
Submitted: June 29, 2012 Decided: August 7, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
David R. Burroughs, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BURROUGHS, North
East, Maryland, for Appellant. Margaret Fonshell Ward, WARD &
HERZOG, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Patrick J. Richardson appeals the district court’s
orders granting summary judgment for Defendants on his gender
discrimination claim and denying his motion to amend the
complaint. Finding no error, we affirm.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment requires “that all persons similarly situated . . . be
treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985). “To succeed on an equal protection claim,
a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated
differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and
that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or
purposeful discrimination.” Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d
648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). Viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to Richardson, we conclude that there are no genuine
issues of material fact and that Defendants were entitled to
summary judgment on Richardson’s allegations of gender
discrimination. See Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th
Cir. 2008) (providing standard of review).
Turning to the district court’s denial of Richardson’s
motion to amend, we conclude that the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. See Equal
Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 504 (2010) (providing standard
of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 --