Lynn Snyder v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highw
Lynn Snyder v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highw
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2306 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2306
LYNN SNYDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; STATE OF MARYLAND; DARION BRANHAM; DANIEL HOUCK, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00930-CCB)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Neil R. Lebowitz, LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, DeNisha A. Watson, Carolyn M. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2306 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM: Lynn Snyder appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Snyder’s employment and tort claims; and (2) denying Snyder’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it converted Defendants’ motion to a summary judgment motion. See E.W. by & through T.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 n.2 (4th Cir. 2018) (“We generally review a district court’s conversion of a motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion for abuse of discretion.”).
Further, we discern no error in the district court’s decision to grant Defendants summary judgment and thus affirm the district court’s orders. Snyder v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., State Highway Admin., No. 1:21-cv-00930-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2022; Nov. 22, 2022). 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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.