Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry J. MATHIS, Individually and as a representative of the Organization, “Citizens for Change”, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Anthony MUSE, Individually and in his official capacity as State Senator, Defendant-Appellee, and Larnzell Martin, Jr., Judge, Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County; John P. McDonough, Individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Maryland; Kathleen E. Wherthey, Individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Douglas F. Gansler, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Maryland; L. Berryman, Deputy, Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Dept., Individually and in her official capacity as Sheriff Deputies for Prince George’s County, Md.; Jared Demarinis, Individually and in his official capacity as Director for the Maryland Board of Elections, Defendants.
    
      No. 16-1248
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 29, 2016
    Decided: December 15, 2016
    Jerry J. Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry J. Mathis appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant, Senator C. Anthony Muse, on Mathis’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Mathis v. Muse, No. 8:13-cv-02597-JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 25, 2016 & entered Feb. 26, 2016). We also grant Senator Muse’s motion to strike the exhibits attached to Mathis’ reply brief and deny Mathis’ motion to supplement the record with those exhibits. 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.

AFFIRMED