Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM The various motions pending in this case have been read and considered. My rulings follow. The motions to bifurcate (docket entry nos. 11 and 14) are Granted. See Marryshow v. Town of Bladensburg, 139 F.R.D. 318 (D. Md. 1991). Whether any viable claims have been stated against Calvert County and St. Mary's County will be decided, if necessary, during the second stage of these proceedings. The defendants' motions to dismiss (docket entry nos. 9, 10, and 19) will be Granted in part and Denied in part as follows. First, as the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Department and the Calvert County are not independent governmental entities capable of being sued, all claims against those named defendants will be dismissed. Boyer v. State, 594 A.2d 121, 128 n.9 (Md. 1991). Further, as county sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are considered state personnel, see Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 321 F. Supp. 2d 642, 650 (D. Md. 2004); Rucker v. Harford County, 558 A.2d 399, 402 (Md. 1989), all claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). State personnel are immune from liability in tort for actions within the scope of 1

KESIENA TANI v. ST. MARY'S COUNTY, et al.

Civil No. CCB-07-1924

employment and committed without gross negligence or malice. The State's immunity for those acts may be waived under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann. State Gov't

Download Keseina Tani v. St. Mary's County, et al..pdf

Maryland Law