Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01592/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01592-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1592

DARRELL P. HARRIS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

POLICE NATHAN ULMER, in both his official and individual 

capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City Police 

Department; SERGEANT NATALIE PRESTON, in both her official 

and individual capacity as a Police of the Baltimore City 

Police Department,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY W. BATTS, in his 

official capacity as Commissioner of the Baltimore City 

Police Department; 6 UNKNOWN POLICE & K9 DOG, in both their 

official and individual capacity as a Police of the 

Baltimore City Police Department; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF 

BALTIMORE CITY; STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, in both their 

official and individual capacities; GOVERNOR AND THE STATE 

OF MARYLAND; GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, in both his official 

and individual capacity as Governor,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-02470-JFM)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Appeal: 16-1592 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell P. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Frederic Nelson Smalkin, 

Jr., Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1592 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Darrell P. Harris appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims 

against them. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Harris’ motion 

for stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal, deny 

Appellees’ motion to strike Harris’ motion for stay, and affirm 

the district court’s order. Harris v. Ulmer, No. 1:14-cv-02470-

JFM (D. Md. filed May 6, 2016, entered May 9, 2016). 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: 16-1592 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3