B.G.
v.
Malhotra

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITFeb 27, 2017
No. 16-1837 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Reese v. Maryland

    …Furthermore, the State of Maryland has a vital interest in ensuring the well-being of children who reside in…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • abstaining from child custody case brought in federal court, based on Younger, where State had important interest in welfare of a child

    Summary of this case from Reese v. Maryland

No. 16-1837

02-27-2017

B.G., By Her Next Friend B.G., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAM MALHOTRA, In his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Resources; PETER BUESGENS, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Worcester County Department of Social Services; TERESA WALLER, In Her Individual and Official Capacity Worcester County Department of Social Services; SHAE NOTTINGHAM, In Her Individual and Official Capacity Worcester County Department of Social Services; KIMBERLY LINTON, In Her Individual and Official Capacity Worcester County Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees.

Robert McCaig, LEGAL AID BUREAU, INC., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ann M. Sheridan, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-02663-RDB) Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert McCaig, LEGAL AID BUREAU, INC., Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ann M. Sheridan, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

B.G., by her next friend, B.G., appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint challenging a state court child custody proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. B.G. v. Malhotra, No. 1:15-cv-02663-RDB (D. Md. June 20, 2016). 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