Court Opinion

ID: 9408231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 21:00:35.676025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.857476
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1376      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1376

        MICHELLE GROSS; IVAN COWANS; DAQUAN WELLINGTON; DEOINTE
        DANIELS; DEVONTE DANIELS,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        P.O. FRANCISCO HOPKINS, individually and in his official capacity as a public
        safety officer,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:17-cv-03479-BPG)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: July 10, 2023

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Keith Altman, LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN, Farmington Hills,
        Michigan, for Appellants. James L. Shea, City Solicitor, Matthew O. Bradford, Chief
        Solicitor, Michael Redmond, Director, Appellate Practice Group, BALTIMORE CITY
        DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1376         Doc: 20     Filed: 07/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Plaintiffs sued defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their constitutional

        rights during the execution of a warrant at plaintiff Michelle Gross’s home. The district

        court granted summary judgment for defendant. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district

        court’s conclusions. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, “constru[ing] the

        evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the non-moving party.” Betton v. Belue,

        942 F.3d 184, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). Having reviewed the record, we see no reversible error

        and thus affirm. 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