UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1982

CHANTE’ N. HODGE, Mrs.; HAROLD H. HODGE, JR.,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

B.S.H.; B.N.H.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; THOMAS HEDDERICH, First Class Detective; WILLIAM RAY, Detective; UNKNOWN DETECTIVE OR SHERIFF (at door first); CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; R. COX, Deputy I.D. 4064; RICKY THOMAS, Lt.; CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEAM,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02522-PJM)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chante’ N. Hodge, Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Chante’ N. Hodge and Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeal the

district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of

Defendants in their

(2006) civil rights action

and denying the Hodges’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or

amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in Defendants’ favor. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. St. Mary’s Cnty.

Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 8:08-cv-02522-PJM (D. Md. June 22, 2009).

We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

denial of the Hodges’ Rule 59(e) motion and affirm that order.

See Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 1998). 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

3