Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. City of Frederick, Maryland, 08-1855 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1855 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1855 JAMES JONES; SHARON JONES, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. CITY OF FREDERICK, MARYLAND; LOUMIS GENE ALSTON; DIANA MARIE KIMMEL; DEBBIE SHANKIE; JAMES HIRAM KIPPE, JR., Defendants – Appellees, and FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND; SCOTT L. ROLLE; CHARLES J. SMITH; FREDERICK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1855 JAMES JONES; SHARON JONES, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. CITY OF FREDERICK, MARYLAND; LOUMIS GENE ALSTON; DIANA MARIE KIMMEL; DEBBIE SHANKIE; JAMES HIRAM KIPPE, JR., Defendants – Appellees, and FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND; SCOTT L. ROLLE; CHARLES J. SMITH; FREDERICK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07- cv-03010-AMD) Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Joseph Christmas, Stephen M. Gensemer, Justin Gregory Nunzio, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellants. David Bruce Stratton, JORDAN COYNE & SAVITS, Washington, D.C.; Kirsten E. Keating, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Debbie Shankie, James Hiram Kippe, Jr., Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James and Sharon Jones appeal a district court order granting summary judgment to the City of Frederick and Loumis Gene Alston and dismissing their civil rights complaint concerning James Jones’ mistaken arrest for a crime and dismissing their state law claims arising from the same incident. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Jones v. City of Frederick, Md., No. 1:07- cv-03010-AMD (D. Md. June 19, 2008). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer