BLY v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY MD MD (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Raymond J. BLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY, as an agency and instrumentality of the State of Maryland; Wayne A. Robey, Individually and in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court for Howard County, MD; Honorable Lenore Gelfman, individually and in her official capacity as Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Howard County, MD; J. Does, One or more individuals sued in his or her or their individual capacities, and in his or her or their respective capacities as state agents or actors directed or knowingly permitted to perpetrate acts and/or omissions knowingly and intentionally violative, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-2457

Decided: May 26, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Raymond J. Bly, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Dudek, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Raymond J. Bly filed a civil action in the district court alleging that the Defendants improperly denied access to court records relating to his 1987 Maryland criminal convictions. Bly appeals (1) the district court's order granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss; (2) the magistrate judge's order ^* granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Bly's First Amendment right of access claim; and (3) the magistrate judge's order denying Bly's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and his motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the lower court. Bly v. Cir. Ct. for Howard Cnty., Md., No. 1:18-cv-01333-JMC (D. Md. June 26, 2019, Oct. 9, 2019, & Dec. 4, 2019). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2018).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law