Jeffrey Andrew Ledergerber v. CORPORAL JUSTIN L. BLUBAUGH, Individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2193
JEFFREY ANDREW LEDERGERBER; JAMES FRANKLIN BAKER;
EDWARD THOMAS WOLF; CHARLOTTE FREDA WOLF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CORPORAL JUSTIN L. BLUBAUGH, Individually and in his capacity as Harford
County’s Deputy Sheriff; SHERIFF JEFFREY R. GAHLER, Individually and in his
capacity as Harford County’s Sheriff; STATE OF MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND; HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-01208-ABA)
Submitted: April 17, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
ON BRIEF: David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Kirstin Lustila, Assistant Attorney
General, Alexis Gbemudu, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland; David M. Wyand, G. Adam Ruther,
ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Jeffrey Andrew Ledergerber, James Franklin Baker, Edward Thomas
Wolf, and Charlotte Freda Wolf appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on their
civil complaint raising claims under Maryland law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the
magistrate judge’s order denying their motion to reconsider.* We review de novo a grant
of summary judgment, viewing “the facts in the light most favorable to” the nonmoving
parties and “drawing all reasonable inferences in [their] favor.” Dean v. Jones, 984 F.3d
295, 301 (4th Cir. 2021). When reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, “we
consider each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties
deserves judgment as a matter of law” and “resolve all factual disputes and any competing,
rational inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing that motion.” Defs. of
Wildlife v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 762 F.3d 374, 392 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to reconsider. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The magistrate judge did
not err in finding Appellee Justin L. Blubaugh was entitled to summary judgment on
Appellants’ Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Blubaugh is immune from
§ 1983 claims arising from his grand jury testimony, see Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356,
369 (2012), and the evidence forecast on summary judgment did not create a genuine
dispute as to whether he fabricated evidence or misled the prosecution, see id. at 370 n.1;
* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Harris v. Town of S. Pines, 110 F.4th 633, 643 (4th Cir. 2024). Nor did the magistrate
judge err in determining that Appellants’ remaining claims failed for similar reasons as this
Fourth Amendment claim. Finally, we discern no abuse of discretion in the magistrate
judge’s decision to retain jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims. See PEM Entities
LLC v. County of Franklin, 57 F.4th 178, 184 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s orders. 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

-- 4 of 4 --