Chin v. Wilhelm ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1428
    MICHAEL   CHIN;    SWEET    N   SPICY     FOODS,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    MICHAEL V. WILHELM; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Drug Enforcement Administration; STATE OF
    MARYLAND, via its agency the City of Baltimore
    Police,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; THE BALTIMORE
    CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:02-cv-01551-CCB; 1:04-cv-04054-CCB)
    Submitted:   December 6, 2006           Decided:    December 29, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Walter L. Blair, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland; C.
    William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.  Rod J.
    Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis,
    Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Chin and Sweet N Spicy Foods, Inc. brought this
    action, alleging claims under, inter alia, Bivens v. Six Unknown
    Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), and the
    Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).*             The district court granted
    summary judgment in favor of Defendants Michael V. Wilhelm and the
    United States of America, and Chin and Sweet N Spicy now appeal.
    The district court found that Wilhelm was entitled to summary
    judgment on Appellants’ Bivens claims because he did not violate
    Chin’s Fourth Amendment rights.            The district court further found
    that       the   United   States   was   entitled   to   summary   judgment   on
    Appellants’ claims under the FTCA because Appellants failed to
    support an allegation of malice under Maryland law and failed to
    create an issue of triable fact on their claim for intentional
    infliction of emotional distress.             Finally, the district court
    quashed a subpoena issued by Appellants to a Maryland state judge,
    concluding that the judge’s testimony would not aid the development
    of facts relevant to Appellants’ case.
    We have reviewed de novo the record in this case, and we find
    no error in the district court’s entry of summary judgment.                   We
    further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    *
    Appellants’ other claims were disposed of by the district
    court prior to its resolution of the Bivens and FTCA claims which
    are at issue on this appeal. Appellants do not appeal from these
    earlier rulings.
    3
    by quashing the subpoena.   Accordingly, we affirm substantially on
    the reasoning of the district court.   See 1:02-cv-1551-CCB (D. Md.
    Mar. 24, 2006).   We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1428

Filed Date: 12/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014