The opinion identifies Dawnn McCleary-Evans as the appellant and the Maryland Department of Transportation as the defendant in a civil action. The district court had dismissed part of her amended complaint and granted summary judgment in part to the defendant. On appeal, the court reviewed the record presented. The opinion does not state the underlying factual allegations of the civil action.
Issue
Whether the district court committed reversible error in dismissing part of the amended complaint and granting summary judgment in part to the defendant.
Rule
When the appellate court reviews the record and finds no reversible error, it may affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and dispense with oral argument when the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented and argument would not aid the decisional process.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Leah Benton sued Harbor View Transit Authority in federal court in Baltimore. The district court dismissed one claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and later granted summary judgment on the remaining claim; on appeal, the panel reviews the full record and concludes the district court committed no reversible error.
What is the most appropriate appellate disposition?
Explanation. The governing rule is narrow: when the court of appeals reviews the record and finds no reversible error, it may affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. The majority opinion did exactly that after a district court order that both dismissed part of a complaint and granted summary judgment in part. Nothing in the opinion requires a separate extended appellate analysis before affirmance. (Derived from McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation (n.d.).)