Richard Martin v. Howard Walsh, III, No. 15-2138 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 29, 2016.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2138 RICHARD MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HOWARD J. WALSH, III, Esq., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-2302-GJH) Submitted: August 19, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard dismissing Martin his appeals civil § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) the action (2012). We district pursuant review a court’s to order 28 U.S.C. district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the same standards employed when reviewing a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2003). On De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. appeal, conclusion that Martin his challenges claims were the untimely. district Martin’s court’s claims, whether brought under state law or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), were subject to, at longest, a three-year statute of limitations. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general civil statute of limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-105 (2013) (actions for assault and defamation); Owens v. Balt. City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir. 2014) (§ 1983 claims), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1893 (2015). While Martin’s malicious prosecution claim has not yet accrued, this claim is barred by his inability to meet the favorable termination requirement. (Md. 2000). See Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56, 59 Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrate that his remaining claims accrued, at the latest, by the time he was released from prison, and the limitations period was not subject to tolling. 2 See A Soc’y Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (accrual under § 1983); Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 43 A.3d 1029, 1034-35, 1039-41 (Md. 2012) (discussing accrual and tolling under state law); see also Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (4th Cir. 1991) (describing continuing violations doctrine). Finally, because Martin’s claims were properly dismissed, the district court committed no error in denying as moot Martin’s request to file electronically. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
