Codi Evans v. Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Codi Evans v. Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1475 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1475

CODI EVANS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS & PLANNING COMMISSION; CHIEF DARRYL MCSWAIN; CAPTAIN MICHAEL MURPHY; MICHAEL RILEY; CAPTAIN DARIN UHRIG, individually and in their Official Capacity with the Maryland-National Capital Park Police,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Matthew James Maddox, Magistrate Judge. (8:19-cv-02651-MJM)

Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 21, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Cary J. Hansel, Ashton Zylstra, HANSEL LAW, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Amy L. Foster, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL-M-NCPPC, Riverdale, Maryland; Elissa D. Levan, LEVAN RUFF LLC, Annapolis, Maryland; M. Celeste Bruce, Madelaine Kramer Katz, RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Joseph M. Creed, BRAMNICK CREED, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1475 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Codi Evans appeals the magistrate judge’s * order granting Defendants summary

judgment on his numerous employment related claims. Through counsel, Evans challenges

only the court’s dismissal of his hostile work environment racial harassment claims, which

were brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1981

. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Evans v. Md. Nat’l

Cap. Parks & Planning Comm’n, No. 8:19-cv-02651-MJM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2023). 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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c).

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished