eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2015-12

Richard Martin v. State , 624 F. App'x 115 ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2139
RICHARD MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; STATE’S
ATTORNEY JOHN MCCARTHY; ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY CHRISTINA
FAVRETTO; ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY KAREN MOONEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-
cv-02429-PWG)
Submitted:   December 15, 2015              Decided:    December 17, 2015
Before GREGORY     and   FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,    and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard            Martin     appeals          the    district        court’s        order
dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(2012).     For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On        appeal,        Martin      challenges         the        district      court’s
conclusion that his claims were untimely and barred by quasi-
judicial immunity.                As the district court properly concluded,
however, the named prosecuting attorneys were subject to quasi-
judicial immunity “for conduct intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process.”                           See Lyles v. Sparks,
    79 F.3d 372
    ,     376   (4th     Cir.     1996)     (internal       quotation       marks
omitted).
The district court also properly concluded that Martin’s
action was untimely.                  Martin’s claims, whether brought under
state   law         or   42    U.S.C.     § 1983      (2012),     were     subject     to,   at
longest,        a   three-year      statute      of    limitations.           See    Md.    Code
Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general civil statute of
limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.                               § 5-105 (2013)
(actions        for      assault    and     defamation);          Owens     v.     Balt.   City
State’s     Attorneys          Office,
    767 F.3d 379
    ,    388     (4th    Cir.    2014)
(§ 1983 claims), cert. denied,
    135 S. Ct. 1893 
    (2015).                                     While
Martin’s malicious prosecution claim has not yet accrued, this
claim      is       barred     by   his     inability        to     meet     the     favorable
termination requirement.                 See Heron v. Strader,
    761 A.2d 56
    , 59
2
(Md. 2000).      Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged
in the complaint demonstrate that his remaining claims accrued,
at the latest, by the time he was released from prison, and the
limitations period was not subject to tolling.                     A Soc’y Without
a Name v. Virginia,
    655 F.3d 342
    , 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (accrual
under § 1983); Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda,
    43 A.3d 1029
    ,
1034-34,   1039-41     (Md.       2012)    (discussing      accrual     and   tolling
under state law); see also Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Raleigh,
    947 F.2d 1158
    ,    1166-67     (4th       Cir.    1991)     (describing     continuing
violations      doctrine).        Finally,      because    Martin’s     claims    were
properly dismissed, the district court committed no error in
denying as moot Martin’s request to file electronically.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.                       We
deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel.                      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