Sammy Mclain Jr. v. Matt Young - Appeal of § 1983 Complaint Dismissal

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sammy Mclain Jr.'s § 1983 complaint. The dismissal was based on the complaint being frivolous and failing to state a claim. The appellate court found no reversible error in the lower court's orders.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Sammy David Mclain, Jr.'s complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court had previously dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and also denied Mclain's subsequent motions for reconsideration, alteration, or amendment of the judgment, and for a new trial. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

This decision means the dismissal of Mclain's complaint stands. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent in the circuit. The appellate court denied a pending motion to expedite as moot. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is an individual case appeal.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-1814 SAMMY DAVID MC LAIN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATT YOUNG; PEPCO HOLDINGS LLC; EXELON CORPORA TION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the District of Maryland, at Greenbe lt. Deborah L. Boardman, District Judge. (8:25- cv -01972-DLB) Submitted: February 2 6, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judge s, and FLOYD, Senior Circui t Judge. Affirmed by unpublish ed per curiam opini on. Sammy David Mclain, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Sammy David Mclain, Jr., appeals the di strict court’s order s dism issing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous an d for failure to state a cla im and denying his motions to reconsid er, to a lter or amend t he judgment, a nd for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pendin g motion to expedite as moot and affir m the district court ’s order s. Mclain v. Young, No. 8:25- cv -01972-DLB (D. Md. filed July 2, 2025 & entered July 3, 202 5). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument w ould not aid the decisi onal process. AFFIRMED