UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1379
STEVEN W. ALLEN; BRYAN BESSLING,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
RANDY W. BLADES; DARRYLE E. BLAKE; DONALD
BOST; DIANE BROOKS; GINA M. CANNON; MICHAEL W.
CICHOWICZ; DAVID F. CLAUSS; LAVINA DAVIS;
JUANITA DEBELLOTTE; TIMOTHY GODWIN; ALICE
GOODMAN; SHARON GOODMAN; JOSEPH HANDS;
JOSEPHINE KENNEDY; DEREK LEDBETTER; WILLIAM B.
MCKITRICK; THOMAS MILLER; WENDELL MILLER;
KEVIN NIEBUHR; SHIRLEY ONYANGO; KEITH OWENS;
DOROTHIA PARKER-BELL; IRMA D. REED; FREDERICK
V. ROUSSEY; SHARI TAYLOR-DORSEY; DAVID M.
WERNER; DENISE WILKES; MELISSA D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
versus
LEONARD HAMM; SEAN MALONE; THE BALTIMORE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR OF BALTIMORE; CITY
COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1380
MICHAEL W. CICHOWICZ; DAVID F. CLAUSS; WILLIAM
B. MCKITRICK; KEVIN NIEBUHR,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
STEVEN W. ALLEN; BRYAN BESSLING; RANDY W.
BLADES; DARRYLE E. BLAKE; DONALD BOST; DIANE
BROOKS; GINA M. CANNON; LAVINA DAVIS; JUANITA
DEBELLOTTE; TIMOTHY GODWIN; ALICE GOODMAN;
SHARON GOODMAN; JOSEPH HANDS; JOSEPHINE
KENNEDY; DEREK LEDBETTER; THOMAS MILLER;
WENDELL MILLER; SHIRLEY ONYANGO; KEITH OWENS;
DOROTHIA PARKER-BELL; IRMA D. REED; FREDERICK
V. ROUSSEY; SHARI TAYLOR-DORSEY; DAVID M.
WERNER; DENISE WILKES; MELISSA D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
versus
LEONARD HAMM; SEAN MALONE; THE BALTIMORE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR OF BALTIMORE; CITY
COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-00879-RDB)
Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: May 10, 2007
2
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jeffery C. Taylor, SNIDER &
ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Michael W.
Cichowicz, David F. Clauss, William B. McKitrick, and Kevin
Niebuhr; Morris E. Fischer, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellants
Steven W. Allen and Bryan Bessling. Ralph S. Tyler, City
Solicitor, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland;
Karen Stakem Hornig, Chief Legal Counsel, OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
Baltimore City police officers Steven Allen, Bryan Bessling,
Michael Cichowicz, William McKitrick, David Clauss, and Kevin
Niebuhr (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal an order of the
district court granting summary judgment to the Baltimore City
Police Department and other individuals and entities (collectively,
“the City”). Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
In March 2005, the City, acting in consultation with the
Fraternal Order of Police, adopted General Order Q-23. The purpose
of General Order Q-23 was to address the manpower shortage
resulting from the fact that approximately five percent of the
City’s police officers were unavailable for full-duty police work
due to permanent injuries or chronic medical conditions. The
General Order states that there are no permanent light-duty
positions for Baltimore City police officers and provides that
“[a]ll sworn members of the Department are required to be capable
of performing the full duties and law enforcement responsibilities
of a sworn member to include the ability to make forceful arrests,
to drive vehicles under emergency conditions, and to qualify with
a weapon.” J.A. 63.
Appellants, who had been assigned to light-duty positions due
to injuries or medical conditions, were all informed that pursuant
4
to the policy, they must either return to full-duty status or apply
for retirement benefits. They subsequently brought this action
alleging that they were victims of discrimination in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. The district court denied Appellants’ request to
conduct discovery and granted summary judgment to the City.
II.
We conclude that the district court correctly decided the
issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5