UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1248

JERRY J. MATHIS, Individually and as a representative of the Organization, "Citizens for Change",

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C. ANTHONY MUSE, Individually and in his official capacity as State Senator,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

LARNZELL MARTIN, JR., Judge, Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County; JOHN P. MCDONOUGH, Individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Maryland; KATHLEEN E. WHERTHEY, Individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Attorney General of the State of Maryland; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Maryland; L. BERRYMAN, Deputy, Prince George's County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in her official capacity as Sheriff Deputies for Prince George's County, Md.; JARED DEMARINIS, Individually and in his official capacity as Director for the Maryland Board of Elections,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-02597-JFM)

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry J. Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Jerry J. Mathis appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendant, Senator C. Anthony Muse, on Mathis’

(2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment. Mathis v. Muse, No. 8:13-cv-02597-JFM (D. Md.

filed Feb. 25, 2016 & entered Feb. 26, 2016). We also grant

Senator Muse’s motion to strike the exhibits attached to Mathis’

reply brief and deny Mathis’ motion to supplement the record with

those exhibits. 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

3