Case Name: Franklin D. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Governor Lawrence J. HOGAN, Jr., in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-05
Citations: 691 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 16-2403
Parties: Franklin D. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Governor Lawrence J. HOGAN, Jr., in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
Franklin D. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Governor Lawrence J. HOGAN, Jr., in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-2403
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2017
Decided: June 5, 2017
Franklin D. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew John Fader, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Franklin D. Jackson appeals the district court's order granting Governor Hogan's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing Jackson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Given the ambiguity of the statutory scheme contained in Md. Code, Art. 2B, § 15-101 (West 2014), the historical practice of Maryland Senate confirmation for appointments to the Prince George's County Board of License Commissioners, and the presumption that Senate confirmation is necessary for civil officers under Md. Const., Art. II, § 10, we agree with the distinct court that a reasonable official would not have understood that the conduct at issue violates clearly established law. See Mullenix v. Luna, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015). We therefore conclude that Governor Hogan is entitled to qualified immunity, and we affirm the district court's judgment. 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
Jackson's argument on appeal improperly defines the alleged clearly established right at a high level of generality. See Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 308.