Albert J. Bierman, Sr. v. Moe D. Davenport, William D. Amoss, Harford County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1939
ALBERT J. BIERMAN, SR.,
Plaintiff − Appellant,
v.
MOE D. DAVENPORT, WILLIAM D. AMOSS, HARFORD COUNTY
Defendants – Appellees,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:22−cv−00012-CCB)
Submitted: November 9, 2023 Decided: March 4, 2024
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Walter W. Green, GREEN LAW, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Appellant. David M. Wyand, Brooke A. Hutchins, ROSENBERG MARTIN
GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Albert Bierman appeals from the district court’s August 16, 2022 order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
This appeal concerns Albert Bierman’s application to sell an easement on his land
to the Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation (“MALPF”)—a Maryland
program designed to “preserve the State’s agricultural land and economy by acquiring
‘agriculture easements.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., 68 A.3d 843,
845–46 (Md. 2013). Bierman alleges that he applied to sell an easement to MALPF, but
Harford County employees Moe Davenport and William Amoss made alterations to his
application that caused MALPF to deny it. Bierman sued Davenport, Amoss, and Harford
County, asserting several claims arising out of these allegedly “illegal alterations.” J.A.
13–25.
The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the changes
were either permissible or immaterial. J.A. 106–113. And the court chose to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.
We agree with the district court’s reasoning. And we cannot say that the district
court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice. SAS Assocs. 1, LLC v. City Council
for City of Chesapeake, 91 F.4th 715, 722 n.1 (4th Cir. 2024) (finding no abuse of
discretion when the plaintiff “never asked for leave to amend below and given the
infirmities in their complaint any amendment would have been futile”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bierman v. Davenport, No.
CCB-22-12, 2022 WL 3369574 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2022). We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --