Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02139/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2139

RICHARD MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; STATE’S 

ATTORNEY JOHN MCCARTHY; ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY CHRISTINA

FAVRETTO; ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY KAREN MOONEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-

cv-02429-PWG)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2139 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 quasijudicial immunity. As the district court properly concluded, 

however, the named prosecuting attorneys were subject to quasijudicial immunity “for conduct intimately associated with the 

judicial phase of the criminal process.” See Lyles v. Sparks, 

79 F.3d 372, 376 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

The district court also properly concluded that Martin’s 

action was untimely. Martin’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. See Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56, 59 

Appeal: 15-2139 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

(Md. 2000). 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. 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. We 

deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel. 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

Appeal: 15-2139 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3