UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LATASHA HIRD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ELMER DAVIS; TIMOTHY SYKES;

LAWRENCE WRIGHT; WILLIAM

No. 97-1047

MCINTYRE, individually and as

agents, servants, and employees of

the City of Salisbury Police

Department; THE CITY OF SALISBURY,

a body corporate and politic,

Defendants-Appellants.

LATASHA HIRD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ELMER DAVIS; TIMOTHY SYKES;

LAWRENCE WRIGHT; WILLIAM

No. 97-1125

MCINTYRE, individually and as

agents, servants, and employees of

the City of Salisbury Police

Department; THE CITY OF SALISBURY,

a body corporate and politic,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Benson E. Legg, District Judge.

(CA-96-326-L)

Submitted: August 6, 1997

Decided: June 29, 1998
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William J. Chen, Jr., John B. Walsh, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Linda Eve Percy, Timonum, Maryland; Richard W. Drury,

MCMULLEN, DRURY & PINDER, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant LaTasha Hird, a public safety officer employed by the

Police Department of the City of Salisbury, Maryland, brought this

federal action against the City and a number of fellow-officers in the

Department. Her second amended complaint alleged continuous, systematic acts of sexual harassment by the individual defendants which,

when brought to the attention of her supervisors resulted in no corrective action by the City, but only retaliatory acts against her by the

supervisors. On the basis of these factual allegations, she alleged a

Title VII claim for sexual harassment against her immediate supervisor, a Lt. Davis, and the City; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

the City for discriminatory sexual harassment; state common law

claims against the City for negligent supervision and retention and

against various individual defendants for battery, intentional infliction

of emotional distress, and false imprisonment; and a state constitu-

 2
tional tort claim against the City and all the individual defendants for

violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The complaint

sought an injunction and compensatory and punitive damages.

On motions by the City and the individual defendants to dismiss

the several claims on various grounds, the district court: (1) dismissed

the Title VII claim against Lt. Davis for failure to have included him

in Ms. Hird's EEOC charge; and denied the City's motion to dismiss

the Title VII claim against it for failure to allege an inculpating policy

or custom for whose consequences it could be held liable; (2) denied

the City's motion to dismiss the parallel § 1983 claim against it for

failure to state a claim; (3) denied the motion by the City to dismiss

the state common law and constitutional tort claims against it on various grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state cognizable

claims; (4) denied the individual defendants' respective motions to

dismiss the state common law and constitutional tort claims against

them on various grounds of immunity and failures to state claims; and

(5) denied the alternative motions by both the City and the individual

defendants to dismiss the state law claim against them without prejudice as inappropriate for addressing under the court's supplemental

jurisdiction. By subsequent order, the court clarified that though the

several federal and state-law claims pleaded against the City were

allowed to proceed on their prayers for injunctive relief and compensatory damages, punitive damages could not be recovered against the

City on any of the claims.

This appeal by the City and the individual defendants followed.

Ms. Hird has not cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of her

Title VII claim against Lt. Davis, nor the dismissal of her several

claims for punitive damages against the City. Following the filing of

briefs, the parties by joint motion requested that the appeal be submitted for decision on the briefs without oral argument. We granted the

motion and, having considered the briefs and record, now affirm the

judgment on the reasoning of the district court. Specifically, we find

no error of law in the district court's decision to deny all of the defendants' motions to dismiss on the merits save that of Lt. Davis as to

the Title VII claim and that of the City as to the claims against it for

punitive damages. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to dismiss without prejudice the several state

 3
common-law and constitutional tort claims and to retain those claims

for determination under the court's supplemental jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

 4