Richard Martin v. Maryland Courts, No. 15-2142 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2142 RICHARD MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND COURTS; ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARY G. EVERNGAM; ASSOCIATE JUDGE MICHAEL CONROY; ASSOCIATE JUDGE TERRENCE J. MCGANN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02432-GJH) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 17, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Martin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal, Martin challenges the district court’s conclusion that his claims were untimely and barred by judicial immunity. As the district court properly concluded, however, the judges Martin named as defendants enjoyed absolute immunity from Martin’s claims against them based on actions taken within their judicial capacities. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). The district court also properly concluded that Martin’s action was untimely. state law longest, or a 42 Martin’s claims, whether brought under U.S.C. three-year § 1983 statute of (2012), were limitations. subject See to, Md. at Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general civil statute of limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (actions State’s for assault Attorneys and Office, defamation); 767 F.3d 379, § 5-105 (2013) Owens v. Balt. City 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 termination requirement. (Md. 2000). inability to meet the favorable See Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56, 59 Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged 2 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. 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, 1034-34, 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. deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We We dispense with contentions this court are 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.
