USCA4 Appeal: 24-1622      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/20/2025    Pg: 1 of 3




                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                              No. 24-1622


        RENIEL ADRIAN MEYLER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY; CORPORAL MATTHEW
        FOREMAN; POLICE OFFICER NORRIS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.



        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00082-JKB)


        Submitted: August 29, 2025                                  Decided: November 20, 2025


        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        ON BRIEF: Fatai A. Suleman, FAS LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
        Appellant. Bruce F. Bright, AYRES, JENKINS, GORDY, & ALMAND, P.A., Ocean
        City, Maryland, for Appellees.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1622      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/20/2025      Pg: 2 of 3




        PER CURIAM:

               Raniel Adrien Meyler appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

        to Appellees on Meyler’s 

 and state law tort claims and dismissing without

        prejudice, after declining to exercise jurisdiction over, the remaining state law claim under

        the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On appeal, Meyler challenges the grant of summary

        judgment to Appellees on his claims. We review de novo a district court’s grant of

        summary judgment, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable

        to the nonmoving party.” Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 

 (4th Cir. 2020).

        Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as

        to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 56(a). “A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the

        governing law, and a genuine dispute exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

        could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Aleman v. City of Charlotte, 

 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). Conversely, “[w]hen a party fails to establish the

        existence of an element essential to that party’s case, there is no genuine issue of material

        fact.” Perkins v. Int’l Paper Co., 

 (4th Cir. 2019).

               We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible

        error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Meyler v. Mayor and City Council

        of Ocean City, No. 1:23-cv-00082-JKB (D. Md. June 5, 2024).




                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1622         Doc: 25    Filed: 11/20/2025   Pg: 3 of 3




              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