Court Opinion

ID: 1001893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:02:22.200892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:31.683332
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL S. MATTHEWS, in his own
right, and as representative on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs
similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, a
charter entity; CHARLES ECKER, in
both his individual and official
capacities; BARBARA KRANKOWSKI, in
both her individual and official
                                               No. 99-2654
capacities; RAQUEL SANUDO, in both
her individual and official
capacities; JAMES N. ROBEY, in both
his individual and official
capacities; WAYNE LIVESAY, in both
his individual and official
capacities; JIMMIE LYNN SAYLOR, in
both her individual and official
capacities; GWEN K. WEST, in both
her individual and official
capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-99-2032-JFM)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: June 20, 2000
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Theodore M. Cooperstein, THEODORE M. COOPERSTEIN, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Barbara M. Cook, Howard County
Solicitor, Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Assistant County Solicitor, Ellicott
City, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Matthews appeals the order of the district court granting
the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment of defendant Howard
County, Maryland (County). We affirm.

Matthews first challenges the district court's judgment against him
on his Title VII claim. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the
district court's holding that Matthews failed to assert a viable claim
of employment discrimination that would entitle him to relief. See
Alexander v. Estepp, 95 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 1996).

As to his civil rights claims, the district court correctly held that the
relevant, three-year statute of limitations had expired before Mat-
thews filed his claim. See Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 804 (4th
Cir. 1998). Section 1986, 42 U.S.C. (1994), contains its own one-year

                     2
limitation, which was also expired. Nor are we persuaded by any of
Matthews's arguments concerning tolling, equitable estoppel, or con-
tinuing violation.

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in refusing to certify a class. See United States v. Jones, 136 F.3d
342, 349 (4th Cir. 1998). We affirm the ruling of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3