GELIN v. SHUMAN

No. 21-1498.

35 F.4th 212 (2022)

Edward GELIN; Deborah Gelin, as personal representatives of the Estate of Ashleigh Gelin, and for themselves, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kyle SHUMAN, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland; Jennifer Sevier, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland; Roselor Saint Fleur, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland; DIANE BAHR, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland; Victoria Titus, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees and Jay R. Fisher, Sheriff of Baltimore County, individually and in his representative capacity; John Doe 1-10; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Baltimore County, Maryland; John and Jane Does 1-8; Nicholas Quisguard, individually and in his official capacity; Myesha White, individually and in her official capacity; Joseph Lux, individually and in his official capacity; Gregory Lightner, individually and in his official capacity; Carl Luckett, individually and in his official capacity; Michelle Rawlins, individually and in her official capacity; Michael Salisbury, II, individually and in his official capacity; Deborah J. Richardson, Director of Baltimore County Detention Center, individually and as an agent/employee of Baltimore County, Maryland, Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: May 24, 2022.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: Lee B. Rauch , FREEMAN RAUCH, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellants. Lauren Elizabeth Marini , ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Steven R. Freeman , FREEMAN RAUCH, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellants. Eric M. Rigatuso , ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Diaz and Judge Quattlebaum joined.


The plaintiffs in this civil action served process on several of the defendants roughly a year after filing their complaint, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)'s 90-day time requirement for service. The district court found insufficient the plaintiffs' efforts to establish "good cause" for the delay, and...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases