Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02083/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 15-2083

HAROLD HAMILTON HODGE, JR.; CHANTE’ NICOLE HODGE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND (CSM); DR. BRADLEY M. 

GOTTFRIED, President of CSM; SUE SUBOCZ, VP of Academics 

Affairs Math Dept.; LORETTA MCGRATH; RICHARD B. FLEMING; 

JEFFREY POTTER; RICHARD WELSH; MATTHEW SCHATZ; RICARDO 

“DOE”; CHARLES “DOE”, CSM Computer Tech; CALVERT COUNTY 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity; CHARLES 

COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Official and Unofficial capacity; 

STATE OF MARYLAND, Official and Unofficial capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-02829-DKC) 

Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016 

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Chante’ N. Hodge, Appellants Pro Se. 

Steven David Frenkil, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, 

Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland; Carl N.

 

Dismissed by Supreme Court, November 28, 2016

Appeal: 15-2083 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
Zacarias, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, 

Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Dismissed by Supreme Court, November28,2016

Appeal: 15-2083 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

Harold H. Hodge, Jr., and Chante’ N. Hodge appeal from the 

district court’s orders granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

motions of Defendants and dismissing the Hodges’ civil action 

and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Hodge v. Coll. of S. Md., No. 8:14-cv-02829-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 3 & 

Sept. 4, 2015).* 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

 * We also reject as without merit the Hodges’ appellate 

challenge to the district court’s failure to recuse itself. 

See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Appeal: 15-2083 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3