Chante' Hodge v. St. Mary's County Sheriff's De, No. 09-1982 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1982 CHANTE N. HODGE, Mrs.; HAROLD H. HODGE, JR., Plaintiffs Appellants, and B.S.H.; B.N.H., Plaintiffs, v. ST. MARY S COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT; THOMAS HEDDERICH, First Class Detective; WILLIAM RAY, Detective; UNKNOWN DETECTIVE OR SHERIFF (at door first); CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE; R. COX, Deputy I.D. 4064; RICKY THOMAS, Lt.; CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEAM, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02522-PJM) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chante N. Hodge, Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Chante N. Hodge and Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeal the district court s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action and denying the Hodges Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. reversible We error in have the reviewed district judgment in Defendants favor. the record court s grant and of find no summary Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. St. Mary s Cnty. Sheriff s Dep t, No. 8:08-cv-02522-PJM (D. Md. June 22, 2009). We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of the Hodges Rule 59(e) motion and affirm that order. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1998). 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 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.