Case Name: H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Baltimore City Police Department; Baltimore City False Alarm Reduction Program; Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development; Joseph B. Johnson, Program Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-20
Citations: 475 F. App'x 918
Docket Number: No. 12-1717
Parties: H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Baltimore City Police Department; Baltimore City False Alarm Reduction Program; Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development; Joseph B. Johnson, Program Manager, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 918–918

Head Matter:
H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Baltimore City Police Department; Baltimore City False Alarm Reduction Program; Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development; Joseph B. Johnson, Program Manager, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-1717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2012.
H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:12-cv-00945-JKB, 2012 WL 1900533 (D.Md. May 23, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Although Laskey's pleadings reference the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause, we conclude his pleadings fall far short of establishing a cognizable claim under either clause.