Phillip Hill v. Frederick County Maryland District Court - Civil Appeal

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's order dismissing a pro se civil complaint filed by Phillip Edward Hill against the Frederick County Maryland District Court and other defendants. The court found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of Phillip Edward Hill's amended civil complaint. The appeal, docketed as No. 25-6964, concerned the dismissal of a case originally filed in the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:24-cv-01897-LKG). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thus upholding the lower court's decision.

As this is an unpublished opinion, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. The decision affirms the district court's order, meaning the case is concluded at this level. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is a specific case outcome rather than a regulatory change affecting broader industry practices. The filing date of the original district court order was October 27, 2025.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6964 PHILLIP EDW ARD HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FREDERICK COU NTY MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT; DINO FLORES, District Court Judge; BRETT ANGLER, States Attorney; ALAN WINIK, Plaintiff ’ s Ex Counsel; FREDERICK COUN TY SHERIFF ’ S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the District of Marylan d, at Baltimore. Lydia Kay Grigg sby, District Judge. (1:24 - cv - 01897 - LKG) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAU M, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Hill, App ellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Phillip E. Hill app eals the district court’s order dismissing his pro se amended civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern n o reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. H ill v. Frederick Cnty. Md. D ist. Ct., No. 1:24 - cv - 01897 - LKG (D. Md. f iled Oct. 24, 2025 & entered Oct. 27, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED