Hodge v. Taylor Gas Co., Inc., No. 06-1002 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1002 CHANT E N. HODGE; HAROLD HODGE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus TAYLOR GAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BERNARD TAYLOR; FRANCIS TAYLOR; BELINDA ANTHONY; CHUCK, Taylor Helper; BRIAN, Taylor Truck Driver, Defendants - Appellees. and UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, Lexington Park, Maryland; REGGIE RABON, Postmaster; UNITED STATES MAIL CLERK TONY; UNITED STATES MAIL CLERK WILMER; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, HEADQUARTERS, Washington, DC; JACK POTTER, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Capital District Consumer Affairs, Capitol Heights, Maryland; NANCY MILLER; DENISE MCQUEEN, Claims Investigator; DAWN DINKINS; WILLIAM H., Taylor Driver or Helper; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, St. Louis, Missouri; SANDRA L. BEVERLY; DEREK LEWIS; CELLE; EDWARD BROWN; JANIS COOKER, CEO; SUZANAE MEDVIDOVICH, Vice President; PEGGY SMITH; RICHARD LINDSEY; PAKMAIL; GREG HARRIS, Owner, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA05-319-DKC-8) Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chant e N. Hodge, and Harold Hodge, Appellants Pro Se. Sanford Alex Friedman, LAW OFFICES OF SANFORD FRIEDMAN, L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Chant e N. Hodge and Harold Hodge appeal the district court s order dismissing their complaint construed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) and various state claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hodge v. Taylor Gas Go., Inc., No. CA-05-319-DKC-8 (D. Md. Dec. 6, 2005). We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.