UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2059
CHARLES H. CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LOUIS HOPSON; ZEINAB RABOLD; JOHN M. MACK; JACQUES
BONAPARTE; MELVIN RUSSELL; CHRISTINE BOYD; CARLOS PERRY;
ANTHONY GOODE; LESLIE EDWARDS; MICHAEL FARRAR; EDWARD
TINDEL; LYNELL GREEN; SHIRLEY ONYANGO; ANTHONY ELLISON;
EXDOL WILLIAMS; MICHAEL EDWARDS; ERICA FOOTE; ANTOINE
TRAVERS; KAREN ALSTON; MAURICE PRICE; LOUIS H. HOPSON, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE, a municipal corporation of the State of Maryland,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
CITY OF BALTIMORE; MARTIN O’MALLEY, Mayor of the City of
Baltimore; LEONARD HAMM, Police Commissioner for the City of
Baltimore; EDWARD T. NORRIS, JR., Former Police Commissioner
for the City of Baltimore; THOMAS FRAZIER, Former Police
Commissioner for the City of Baltimore; SEAN R. MALONE,
Labor Commissioner for the City of Baltimore; MARIA KORMAN,
Trial Board Counsel for the Baltimore City Police
Department; GARY MAY, Former Legal Affairs Director for the
Baltimore City Police Department, in their official
capacities; LEONARD D. HAMM, Acting Police Commissioner,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:04-cv-03842-WDQ)
Submitted: March 19, 2015 Decided: March 27, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles H. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Gilkey, Assistant
Solicitor, Suzanne Sangree, George Albert Nilson, BALTIMORE CITY
LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Charles H. Carter appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
Carter’s motion, which was construed as a motion for contempt in
relation to a settlement agreement that the court had previously
approved. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Carter v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, No.
1:04-cv-03842-WDQ (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2014). We grant Carter
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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