Codi Evans v. Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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- Unpublished