Charles A. Dread v. Maryland State Police

Was the Trial Court’s denial of the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Hearing without granting the Petitioner a Hearing he requested, legally correct when Maryland Rule 2-311(f) requires the Trial Court to hold a Hearing before rendering a decision disposing of a claim or a defense?

Petitioner’s evidence raised substantial issues of fact as to whether Petitioner was Fired/ Retired because of a Subjective belief, and if so, whether his Discharge/ Retirement eventuated from the Racial Disadvantage permitting a White Woman in his Patrol Unit where a Hand Gun was Found while assisting this Person from and to Police Units. See, (Battle v. Mulholland. C. A. Miss. 19971, 439 F.2d 321.)

Whether State Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the Action they took within their shear of Official responsibility when they evicted Petitioner from Public Market would violate Constitutional Rights of Petitioner and whether Respondents took such Action with Malicious Intention to cause a Deprivation of Constitutional Rights or Other Injury to Petitioner are Questions of Fact. See, (Wilder v. Irvin. D.C. GA. 1976, 423 F. Supp. 639.)