Jerry Mathis v. C. Anthony Muse, No. 16-1248 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1248 JERRY J. MATHIS, Individually and as a representative of the Organization, "Citizens for Change", Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. ANTHONY MUSE, Individually and in his official capacity as State Senator, Defendant – Appellee, and LARNZELL MARTIN, JR., Judge, Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County; JOHN P. MCDONOUGH, Individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Maryland; KATHLEEN E. WHERTHEY, Individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Attorney General of the State of Maryland; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Maryland; L. BERRYMAN, Deputy, Prince George's County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in her official capacity as Sheriff Deputies for Prince George's County, Md.; JARED DEMARINIS, Individually and in his official capacity as Director for the Maryland Board of Elections, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-02597-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry J. Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jerry J. Mathis appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant, Senator C. Anthony Muse, on Mathis’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. and find no reversible error. court’s judgment. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm the district Mathis v. Muse, No. 8:13-cv-02597-JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 25, 2016 & entered Feb. 26, 2016). We also grant Senator Muse’s motion to strike the exhibits attached to Mathis’ reply brief and deny Mathis’ motion to supplement the record with those exhibits. 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 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.
