Claude Holland v. State of Maryland, No. 09-1815 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1815 CLAUDE HOLLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LORI HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; R.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. (1:06cv-01649-AMD) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. November 2, 2010 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Claude Holland filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding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 Department. termination from the Wicomico County Sheriff s 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 Holland v. Maryland, No. 1:06-cv-01649-AMD (D. Md. July court. 2, 2009). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.