Opinion
24-1168
08-01-2024
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.
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 30, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00927-JRR)
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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").