Darrell P. Harris v. Police Nathan Ulmer, in both his official

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1592
DARRELL P. HARRIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
POLICE NATHAN ULMER, in both his official and individual
capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City Police
Department; SERGEANT NATALIE PRESTON, in both her official
and individual capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City
Police Department,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY W. BATTS, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Baltimore City
Police Department; 6 UNKNOWN POLICE & K9 DOG, in both their
official and individual capacity as a Police of the
Baltimore City Police Department; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE CITY; STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, in both their
official and individual capacities; GOVERNOR AND THE STATE
OF MARYLAND; GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, in both his official
and individual capacity as Governor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cv-02470-JFM)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell P. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Frederic Nelson Smalkin,
Jr., Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Darrell P. Harris appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims
against them. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Harris’ motion
for stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal, deny
Appellees’ motion to strike Harris’ motion for stay, and affirm
the district court’s order. Harris v. Ulmer, No. 1:14-cv-02470-
JFM (D. Md. filed May 6, 2016, entered May 9, 2016). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --