John Goff, Jr. v. Baltimore County, No. 09-1261 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1261 JOHN A. GOFF, JR., individually and as parent and next friend of his minor children, J.G., III, S.M.G., J.A.G.; CARRIE A. GOFF, individually and as parent and next friend of her minor children, J.G., III, S.M.G., J.A.G., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOSEPH HARDEN, Officer #4984, individually and in his official capacity; AARON MAISANO, Officer #5120, individually and in his official capacity; MARGARET HEIN, Officer #4617, individually and in her official capacity; DERYCK LEE, Officer #4697, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00557-SKG) Submitted: June 11, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Goff, Jr., Carrie A. Goff, Appellants Pro Se. Mayhew, Assistant Counsel, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Paul M. OF LAW, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John magistrate A. Goff, judge s order Jr. and entering Carrie A. judgment accordance with the jury s verdict. * Goff for appeal Defendants the in The Goffs brought suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Maryland law. The Goffs have not provided a transcript, and they fail to establish a basis to have the transcript prepared at government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). We have reviewed the existing record and the issues the Goffs raise on appeal, and find no grounds for appellate relief. the magistrate judge s order. Accordingly, we affirm Goff v. Baltimore County, No. 1:08-cv-00557-SKG (D. Md. Feb. 6, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 3
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.
