Case Name: Claude HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lori Holland, Plaintiff, v. State of MARYLAND; R. Hunter Nelms; Robert Van Meter, Major, Defendants-Appellees, and Wicomico County, Maryland, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-02
Citations: 400 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 09-1815
Parties: Claude HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lori Holland, Plaintiff, v. State of MARYLAND; R. Hunter Nelms; Robert Van Meter, Major, Defendants—Appellees, and Wicomico County, Maryland, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
Claude HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lori Holland, Plaintiff, v. State of MARYLAND; R. Hunter Nelms; Robert Van Meter, Major, Defendants—Appellees, and Wicomico County, Maryland, Defendant.
No. 09-1815.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 2, 2010.
Robin R. Cockey, Cockey, Brennan & Maloney, P.C., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, H. Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Claude Holland filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding his termination from the Wicomico County Sheriffs Department. The district court denied relief on both claims. On appeal, we affirmed the denial of Holland's First Amendment claim but vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings regarding Holland's Fourteenth Amendment reputational claim made under the Supreme Court's opinion in Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and related cases. See Holland v. Maryland, 307 Fed.Appx. 746 (4th Cir.2009).
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that Holland's reputational claim failed because the statements to the press regarding Holland were true. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holland v. Maryland, No. 1:06-cv-01649-AMD, 2009 WL 1940712 (D.Md. July 2, 2009). 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.