Court Opinion

ID: 9412373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:01:02.079865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:12.068358
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1398      Doc: 5        Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1398

        GRAHAM SCHIFF,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ADA E. CLARK-EDWARDS; TODD STEUART; KATHERINE TRENHOLM
        GETTY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00822-ELH)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1398         Doc: 5     Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Graham Harry Schiff appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. Schiff filed his complaint in March 2023 raising claims for conduct that

        occurred in July 2019. Because Schiff knew of the alleged injury arising from the conduct

        when it occurred in 2019, his § 1983 claims were time-barred. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

        Proc. § 5-101 (2022); Nat’l Advert. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (4th

        Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Schiff v. Clark-Edwards, No.

        1:23-cv-00822-ELH (D. Md. Apr. 11, 2023); see Earle v. Schreves, 990 F.3d 774, 781 n.3

        (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that we may “affirm a judgment for any reason appearing on

        the record”). 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

                                                    2