Maryland Code
Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-207 (2026)
§ 10-207
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MD-GAmgaleg.maryland.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§10–207.
(a) The Executive Director or the Director’s designee shall conduct a preliminary review of each complaint submitted to the Office.
(b) (1) After preliminary review, if the complaint is determined to be wholly lacking in merit on its face, the Executive Director or the Director’s designee may dismiss the complaint without a hearing or specific findings of fact.
(2) (i) The order of dismissal shall be forwarded to the complainant within 60 days after the complaint was submitted to the Office.
(ii) The order of dismissal constitutes the final decision of the Secretary for purposes of judicial review.
(c) (1) After preliminary review, if the complaint is not found to be wholly lacking in merit on its face, the Office shall refer the complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
(2) The Office of Administrative Hearings shall hold a hearing on the complaint as promptly as practicable.
(a) The Executive Director or the Director’s designee shall conduct a preliminary review of each complaint submitted to the Office.
(b) (1) After preliminary review, if the complaint is determined to be wholly lacking in merit on its face, the Executive Director or the Director’s designee may dismiss the complaint without a hearing or specific findings of fact.
(2) (i) The order of dismissal shall be forwarded to the complainant within 60 days after the complaint was submitted to the Office.
(ii) The order of dismissal constitutes the final decision of the Secretary for purposes of judicial review.
(c) (1) After preliminary review, if the complaint is not found to be wholly lacking in merit on its face, the Office shall refer the complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
(2) The Office of Administrative Hearings shall hold a hearing on the complaint as promptly as practicable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Patrick v. Sec'y, Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs., 847 A.2d 450 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).
Patrick v. Sec'y, Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs., 847 A.2d 450 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). “Code (1999), § 10-207 of the Correctional Services Article.”
Anderson v. State of Maryland, No. 1:22-cv-01117 (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2023). “The prisoner must include in the grievance copies of the initial request or administrative remedy, the Warden’s response to that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy of the Commissioner’s response.”
Myers v. Yes Care Corp., No. 1:22-cv-03102 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2024). “The prisoner must include in the grievance copies of the initial request or administrative remedy, the Warden’s response to that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy of the Commissioner’s response.”
Prince v. Crabtree, No. 1:23-cv-00875 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2024). “The prisoner must include in the grievance copies of the initial request or administrative remedy, the Warden’s response to that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy of the Commissioner’s response.”
McKnight v. Malone, No. 1:23-cv-02573 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2025). “The prisoner must include in the grievance copies of the initial request or administrative remedy, the Warden’s response to that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy of the Commissioner’s response.”
Wilson, No. 1:24-cv-01660 (D. Md. Feb. 25, 2026). “The prisoner must include in the grievance copies of the initial request or administrative remedy, the Warden’s response to that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy of the Commissioner’s response.”
Huffer v. Moyer, No. 8:16-cv-03235 (D. Md. Sept. 24, 2019). “Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-207 (b)(1); see also Md.”
Williams v. Corcoran, No. 1:19-cv-00896 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2020). “), § 10-207(b)(2)(ii) of the Correctional Services Article (“Corr.”
Barnes v. Anderson, No. 8:20-cv-00100 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2020). “Barnes filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office (“IGO”), which was administratively dismissed as moot pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Corr. Serv. § 10-207(b)(1).”
Boyer v. Iser, No. 8:20-cv-01260 (D. Md. Aug. 27, 2021). “Md. Code Corr. Servs. §§ 10-207, 10-210. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.”
Hunter v. Butler, No. 1:21-cv-00212 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2022). “The letter also stated that if the IGO did not receive his resubmission within 30 days, his “grievance [would] be dismissed pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Corr. Serv. § 10-207(b)(1), without further notice to [him].”
Cruse v. Sanni, No. 1:22-cv-00521 (D. Md. July 22, 2024). “” Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-207 (West) Alternative for Summary Judgment, construed as a Motion for Summary Judgement, is denied as to Defendants Sanni, Asuelimen, Abidogun, and Choutedjem.”
Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-207(b)(1): 2 cases
Barnes v. Anderson, No. 8:20-cv-00100 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2020). “Barnes filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office (“IGO”), which was administratively dismissed as moot pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Corr. Serv. § 10-207(b)(1).”
Hunter v. Butler, No. 1:21-cv-00212 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2022). “The letter also stated that if the IGO did not receive his resubmission within 30 days, his “grievance [would] be dismissed pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Corr. Serv. § 10-207(b)(1), without further notice to [him].”
Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-207(b)(2)(ii): 1 case
Williams v. Corcoran, No. 1:19-cv-00896 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2020). “), § 10-207(b)(2)(ii) of the Correctional Services Article (“Corr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.