Chin v. Wilhelm, No. 06-1428 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1428 MICHAEL CHIN; INCORPORATED, SWEET N SPICY FOODS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus MICHAEL V. WILHELM; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Drug Enforcement Administration; STATE OF MARYLAND, via its agency the City of Baltimore Police, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:02-cv-01551-CCB; 1:04-cv-04054-CCB) Submitted: December 6, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter L. Blair, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland; C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Chin and Sweet N Spicy Foods, Inc. brought this action, alleging claims under, inter alia, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act ( FTCA ).* The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Michael V. Wilhelm and the United States of America, and Chin and Sweet N Spicy now appeal. The district court found that Wilhelm was entitled to summary judgment on Appellants Bivens claims because he did not violate Chin s Fourth Amendment rights. that the United States was The district court further found entitled to summary judgment on Appellants claims under the FTCA because Appellants failed to support an allegation of malice under Maryland law and failed to create an issue of triable fact on their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally, the district court quashed a subpoena issued by Appellants to a Maryland state judge, concluding that the judge s testimony would not aid the development of facts relevant to Appellants case. We have reviewed de novo the record in this case, and we find no error in the district court s entry of summary judgment. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion * Appellants other claims were disposed of by the district court prior to its resolution of the Bivens and FTCA claims which are at issue on this appeal. Appellants do not appeal from these earlier rulings. 3 by quashing the subpoena. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Mar. 24, 2006). See 1:02-cv-1551-CCB (D. Md. 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 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
