Opinion
Nos. 06-1379, 06-1380.
Submitted: March 30, 2007.
Decided: May 10, 2007.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00879-RDB).
Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jeffery C. Taylor, Snider Associates, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants Michael W. Cichowicz, David F. Clauss, William B. McKitrick, and Kevin Niebuhr; Morris E. Fischer, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellants Steven W. Allen and Bryan Bessling. Ralph S. Tyler, City Solicitor, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, Maryland; Karen Stakem Hornig, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Baltimore City police officers Steven Allen, Bryan Bessling, Michael Cichowicz, William McKitrick, David Clauss, and Kevin Niebuhr (collectively, "Appellants") appeal an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Baltimore City Police Department and other individuals and entities (collectively, "the City"). Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
In March 2005, the City, acting in consultation with the Fraternal Order of Police, adopted General Order Q-23. The purpose of General Order Q-23 was to address the manpower shortage resulting from the fact that approximately five percent of the City's police officers were unavailable for full-duty police work due to permanent injuries or chronic medical conditions. The General Order states that there are no permanent light-duty positions for Baltimore City police officers and provides that "[a]ll sworn members of the Department are required to be capable of performing the full duties and law enforcement responsibilities of a sworn member to include the ability to make forceful arrests, to drive vehicles under emergency conditions, and to qualify with a weapon." J.A. 63.
Appellants, who had been assigned to light-duty positions due to injuries or medical conditions, were all informed that pursuant to the policy, they must either return to full-duty status or apply for retirement benefits. They subsequently brought this action alleging that they were victims of discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court denied Appellants' request to conduct discovery and granted summary judgment to the City.
II.
We conclude that the district court correctly decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.