Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02059/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2059

CHARLES H. CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

LOUIS HOPSON; ZEINAB RABOLD; JOHN M. MACK; JACQUES 

BONAPARTE; MELVIN RUSSELL; CHRISTINE BOYD; CARLOS PERRY; 

ANTHONY GOODE; LESLIE EDWARDS; MICHAEL FARRAR; EDWARD 

TINDEL; LYNELL GREEN; SHIRLEY ONYANGO; ANTHONY ELLISON; 

EXDOL WILLIAMS; MICHAEL EDWARDS; ERICA FOOTE; ANTOINE 

TRAVERS; KAREN ALSTON; MAURICE PRICE; LOUIS H. HOPSON, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF 

BALTIMORE, a municipal corporation of the State of Maryland,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CITY OF BALTIMORE; MARTIN O’MALLEY, Mayor of the City of 

Baltimore; LEONARD HAMM, Police Commissioner for the City of 

Baltimore; EDWARD T. NORRIS, JR., Former Police Commissioner 

for the City of Baltimore; THOMAS FRAZIER, Former Police 

Commissioner for the City of Baltimore; SEAN R. MALONE, 

Labor Commissioner for the City of Baltimore; MARIA KORMAN, 

Trial Board Counsel for the Baltimore City Police 

Department; GARY MAY, Former Legal Affairs Director for the 

Baltimore City Police Department, in their official 

capacities; LEONARD D. HAMM, Acting Police Commissioner,

Defendants.

Appeal: 14-2059 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:04-cv-03842-WDQ)

Submitted: March 19, 2015 Decided: March 27, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles H. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Gilkey, Assistant 

Solicitor, Suzanne Sangree, George Albert Nilson, BALTIMORE CITY 

LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2059 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Charles H. Carter appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

Carter’s motion, which was construed as a motion for contempt in 

relation to a settlement agreement that the court had previously 

approved. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Carter v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, No. 

1:04-cv-03842-WDQ (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2014). We grant Carter 

leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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: 14-2059 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3