¶1 David Charles Whidden appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint that asserted both violations of federal constitutional law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and claims arising under state law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * Whidden *248 v. Blakes, No. CA-04-751-AW (D.Md. July 29, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 AFFIRMED
¶3 While the district court dismissed Whidden’s state law claims upon a finding that Maryland’s statutory immunity for government officials insulated the defendants from liability, we conclude that a consideration of immunity was unnecessary as the defendants did not lack probable cause for their actions. DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 729 A.2d 354, 366-67 (1999).