Holland v. State of Maryland , 400 F. App'x 777 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1815
CLAUDE HOLLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LORI HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; R. HUNTER NELMS; ROBERT VAN METER, Major,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WICOMICO COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-
cv-01649-AMD)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: November 2, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury,
Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General,
H. Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Claude Holland filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action
alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights
regarding his termination from the Wicomico County Sheriff’s
Department. The district court denied relief on both claims.
On appeal, we affirmed the denial of Holland’s First Amendment
claim but vacated and remanded to the district court for further
proceedings regarding Holland’s Fourteenth Amendment
reputational claim made under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bd.
of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), and related cases. See
Holland v. Maryland, 307 Fed. App’x 746, 2009 WL 122575 (4th
Cir. 2009) (No. 08-1308).
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment
to Defendants, finding that Holland’s reputational claim failed
because the statements to the press regarding Holland were true.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Holland v. Maryland, No. 1:06-cv-01649-AMD (D. Md. July
2, 2009). 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