-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JOSE PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK ELRICH; THOMAS W. No. 02-1393 ANDERSON; THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-01-2648-PJM) Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. John F. Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees. 2 PEREZ v. ELRICH Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Jose Perez filed a complaint in Maryland state court alleging com- mon law defamation, as well as claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983(2000), arising out of several comments made by the chief of police and a city council member from Takoma Park, Maryland. The Defen- dants removed the action to federal court, which denied Perez’s motion to remand and dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for the reasons stated from the bench. Perez appeals. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s statements from the bench, and the parties’ briefs. The district court properly found, first, that Perez failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that, in any event, the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The district court also prop- erly found that none of the statements underlying Perez’s claims were defamatory under Maryland state law. See Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr.,
665 A.2d 297, 317 (Md. App. 1995). Finally, because the district court had jurisdiction at the time it rendered final judgment, we will not disturb its decision to deny Perez’s motion to remand to state court. Aqualon v. MAC Equip.,
149 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis,
519 U.S. 61, 64 (1996) ("[A] district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdic- tional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered"). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi- als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro- cess. AFFIRMED
Document Info
Docket Number: 02-1393
Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 449
Judges: Michael, Gregory, Hamilton
Filed Date: 12/3/2002
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024