Watch, Frederick, Maryland v. the State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1369
LOIS ANN GIBSON; MARYLAND 20-20 WATCH, FREDERICK,
MARYLAND; CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23, AND/OR PUTATIVE CLASSES OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED VOTERS OF MARYLAND AND/OR ELSEWHERE IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
INJURED PERSONS, IN WHATEVER STATE OR COUNTY THEY RESIDE,
DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED, FREEDOM,
LIBERTY, EXPRESSION AND RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE VOTE BY THE
ACTS OR ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND and Several Agencies of the State, Including at least
the State and County Boards of Elections in the Specific Counties Listed herein; A
STATE AND NATIONAL RICO ENTERPRISE, IN PART LOCATED IN
MARYLAND, AND/OR DOING BUSINESS AS PART OF THE COMMERCE
IN MARYLAND WITH COUNTIES, I.E., FREDERICK, HOWARD COUNTY,
CARROLL COUNTIES, MARYLAND AND 18 ADDITIONAL COUNTIES OR
VOTING JURISDICTIONS; CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE (CTCL), A
Chicago IRS Code 501 (c) (3) Corporation; PRESENTLY UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS; THE STATE OF MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE STATE
PROSECUTOR;KENT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; CALVERT
COUNTY; WASHINGTON COUNTY; HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND;
CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY; HARFORD
COUNTY; MONTGOMERY COUNTY; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01642-SAG)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: December 13, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Walter T. Charlton, WALTER T. CHARLTON & ASSOCIATES,
Woodsboro, Maryland, for Appellants. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Daniel M.
Kobrin, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee State of Maryland. Wendy L. Shiff,
Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Maryland Office of the State
Prosecutor. Philip E. Culpepper, Supervising County Attorney, ANNE ARUNDEL
COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Anne Arundel County.
David M. Wyand, ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee Harford County. Gary W. Kuc, County Solicitor, Elizabeth Adams, Senior
Assistant County Solicitor, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City,
Maryland, for Appellee Howard County. Kevin Karpinski, KARPINSKI,
CORNBROOKS & KARP, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees Calvert County,
Carroll County, Washington County, and Kent County Board of Elections. Edward B.
Lattner, Deputy County Attorney, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee Montgomery County. Guy Saint Pol Maydieu,
Associate County Attorney, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Largo,
Maryland, for Appellee Prince George’s County.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Lois Ann Gibson, Maryland 20-20 Watch, and others appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing their civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying their
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the amended complaint based on lack of standing to sue and that
the Rule 59(e) motion lacked merit. The dismissal of the amended complaint, however,
should have been without prejudice. Buscemi v. Bell, 964 F.3d 252, 261 (4th Cir. 2020).
We therefore deny Appellants’ motions to supplement the record, to schedule oral
argument, for oral argument via videoconference, and for injunctive relief pending appeal,
modify the district court’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice,
see id., affirm that dismissal as modified, and affirm the district court’s denial of the Rule
59(e) motion. Gibson v. Maryland, No. 1:22-cv-01642-SAG (D. Md. Dec. 16, 2022 &
Mar. 29, 2023). 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 AS MODIFIED

-- 3 of 3 --