Harold Hodge, Jr. v. College of Southern Maryland ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2083
HAROLD HAMILTON HODGE, JR.; CHANTE’ NICOLE HODGE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND (CSM); DR. BRADLEY M.
GOTTFRIED, President of CSM; SUE SUBOCZ, VP of Academics
Affairs Math Dept.; LORETTA MCGRATH; RICHARD B. FLEMING;
JEFFREY POTTER; RICHARD WELSH; MATTHEW SCHATZ; RICARDO
“DOE”; CHARLES “DOE”, CSM Computer Tech; CALVERT COUNTY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity; CHARLES
COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity;
STATE OF MARYLAND, Official and Unofficial capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02829-DKC)
Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Chante’ N. Hodge, Appellants Pro Se.
Steven David Frenkil, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore,
Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland; Carl N.
Zacarias, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Harold H. Hodge, Jr., and Chante’ N. Hodge appeal from the
district court’s orders granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
motions of Defendants and dismissing the Hodges’ civil action
and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Hodge v. Coll. of S. Md., No. 8:14-cv-02829-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 3 &
Sept. 4, 2015). * 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
*We also reject as without merit the Hodges’ appellate
challenge to the district court’s failure to recuse itself.
See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003).
3