PER CURIAM: Walter James Hovatter appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and Maryland constitutional action. Hovatter argues on appeal that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to the Defendants because he did not have notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard on whether Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), precluded his claims. He also challenges the district court’s decision to limit the scope of his claims to May 2 and 3, 1994. Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews an award of
summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A district court may grant
summary judgment, even sua sponte, so long as the party against whom
summary judgment is granted has “an adequate opportunity to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.” U.S. Dev. Corp. v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 873 F.2d 731, 735 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the briefs, joint appendix, and record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hovatter v. Widdowson, No. l:03-cv02904-CCB, 2006 WL 890713 (D.Md. filed Mar. 29, 2006 & entered Mar. 30, 2006). 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. AFFIRMED.