La’tonya T. Bryant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2127
LA’TONYA T. BRYANT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
QUINTON M. HERBERT, Individually and in his official capacity; CITY OF
BALTIMORE, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Matthew James Maddox, Magistrate Judge. (1:21-cv-00545-MJM)
Submitted: February 21, 2025 Decided: July 11, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Neil R. Lebowitz, LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM, Columbia, Maryland, for
Appellant. Ebony M. Thompson, City Solicitor, Michael Redmond, Director, Appellate
Practice Group, Elisabeth B. Hofmann, Deputy Chief Solicitor, Labor, Employment &

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Personnel, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff La’Tonya T. Bryant initiated this civil action in March 2021 in a Maryland
state court by filing a 13-count complaint against the defendant Mayor and City Council
of Baltimore (the “City”), alleging employment discrimination under both state and federal
law. The City removed the case to the District of Maryland, and Bryant then sought a
remand to state court. By its Memorandum Opinion of December 2021, the federal district
court denied Bryant’s motion to remand. See Bryant v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., No.
1:21-cv-00545 (D. Md. Dec. 6, 2021), ECF No. 23 (the “Remand Denial”). Thereafter, the
City filed a post-discovery motion for summary judgment on all counts, and the district
court granted the City’s motion by its Memorandum Opinion of September 2023. See
Bryant v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., No. 1:21-cv-00545 (D. Md. Sept. 28, 2023), ECF
No. 79 (the “Summary Judgment Award”). In this appeal, Bryant contests both the
Remand Denial and the Summary Judgment Award.
Having carefully considered the appellate briefs and the underlying record, we
discern no reversible error in the rulings challenged on appeal. We therefore adopt the
district court’s thorough and well-reasoned decisions, as to both the Remand Denial and
the Summary Judgment Award. Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --