Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND HOWARD B. HOFFMAN v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPT. et al. : : : : :

Civil No. WMN-04-3072

MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Paper No. 166. The briefing of the summary judgment

motion also spawned two additional motions, a motion to strike and a motion for sanctions, both filed by Plaintiff. 174 and 177. All motions are now ripe. Paper Nos.

Upon a review of the

pleadings and the applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary (Local Rule 105.6) and that Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiff's motions will be denied. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff was employed for slightly less than two years by the Baltimore City Law Department. During his tenure, he worked

exclusively on matters related to the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), concentrated in employment law. He alleges that while so

employed he was himself discriminated against on the basis of his race (Caucasian) and eventually terminated on account of his race, in retaliation for his complaining about that discrimination, and in retaliation for his having requested documents pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act, Md.

Code Ann., State Gov't

Download Hoffman v. Thompson, et al..pdf

Maryland Law