Aleksandr Stoyanov v. Howard County, Maryland ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1168
ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; CALVIN BALL, Howard County Executive;
DEBORAH BARACCO, Executive Secretary, Individually and in her Official
Capacity as the Head of the Animal Control Division; OFFICER S. FOX,
Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Police Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN
INDIVIDUALS, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Howard County
employees participating in conspiracy,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00927-JRR)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy,
HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’
motion to dismiss Stoyanov’s civil claims and denying Stoyanov’s motion for sanctions.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Stoyanov failed to plausibly allege
cognizable claims against Defendants. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[]
a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense”). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal order, albeit on alternate grounds. * Stoyanov v. Howard
Cnty., Md., No. 1:23-cv-00927-JRR (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2024). 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
*
See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing this court’s
authority to “affirm . . . on any ground apparent on the record”).
2