John Kimble v. Montgomery County Police Dep't, No. 14-1115 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1115 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MD) POLICE DEPT.; MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND GOVERNMENT; MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.; ANDREW W. PECORARO, Detective; DUANE GRANT, Detective, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:90-cv-00320-WMN) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Prestigiacomo Via, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Steven Giles Hildenbrand, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Stuart Milton Nathan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland; James Louis Parsons, Jr., LYNOTT, LYNOTT & PARSONS, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John denying his B. Kimble Motion for appeals a New the Trial district and court s Other order Extraordinary Relief in the Interests of Justice * and its subsequent order denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons Montgomery Cnty. stated by the Police Dep t, Dec. 14, 2013; Jan. 28, 2014). district No. court. Kimble 1:90-cv-00320-WMN (D. v. Md. 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. DISMISSED * Noting that Kimble s notice of appeal lists only the order denying reconsideration, Appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the order denying Kimble s motion for a new trial. However, because Kimble s informal brief adequately demonstrates his intent to appeal this order, and because Appellees were not prejudiced by the omission given the arguments in their response brief, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review both orders. See Canady v. Crestar Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 974 (4th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that failure to properly designate portion of judgment appealed in notice of appeal will not result in a loss of appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can fairly be inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced by the mistake (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2
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.
