Court Opinion

ID: 9947895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 21:00:34.221248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:43.173378
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/04/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1939

        ALBERT J. BIERMAN, SR.,

                            Plaintiff − Appellant,

                     v.

        MOE D. DAVENPORT, WILLIAM D. AMOSS, HARFORD COUNTY

                            Defendants – Appellees,

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:22−cv−00012-CCB)

        Submitted: November 9, 2023                                       Decided: March 4, 2024

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Walter W. Green, GREEN LAW, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
        Appellant. David M. Wyand, Brooke A. Hutchins, ROSENBERG MARTIN
        GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939        Doc: 25        Filed: 03/04/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                 Albert Bierman appeals from the district court’s August 16, 2022 order granting

        Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

                 This appeal concerns Albert Bierman’s application to sell an easement on his land

        to the Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation (“MALPF”)—a Maryland

        program designed to “preserve the State’s agricultural land and economy by acquiring

        ‘agriculture easements.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., 68 A.3d 843,

        845–46 (Md. 2013). Bierman alleges that he applied to sell an easement to MALPF, but

        Harford County employees Moe Davenport and William Amoss made alterations to his

        application that caused MALPF to deny it. Bierman sued Davenport, Amoss, and Harford

        County, asserting several claims arising out of these allegedly “illegal alterations.” J.A.

        13–25.

                 The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the changes

        were either permissible or immaterial. J.A. 106–113. And the court chose to dismiss the

        complaint with prejudice.

                 We agree with the district court’s reasoning. And we cannot say that the district

        court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice. SAS Assocs. 1, LLC v. City Council

        for City of Chesapeake, 91 F.4th 715, 722 n.1 (4th Cir. 2024) (finding no abuse of

        discretion when the plaintiff “never asked for leave to amend below and given the

        infirmities in their complaint any amendment would have been futile”).

                 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bierman v. Davenport, No.

        CCB-22-12, 2022 WL 3369574 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2022). We dispense with oral argument

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1939      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/04/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3