Was the Trial Court's denial of the Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Request for Hearing without granting the Appellant a Hearing he requested, legally correct?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Was the Trial Court’s denial of the Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Request for Hearing without granting the Appellant 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? 2) Appellant’s Evidence raised substantial issues of fact as to whether Appellant was fired/retired because of a subjective belief, and if so, whether his 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. 1971, 439 F.2d 321.) 3) Whether State Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the Action they took within their shear of Official responsibility when they evicted Appellant from Public Market would violate Constitutional Rights of Appellant and whether Respondents took such Action with Malicious Intention to cause a Deprivation of Constitution al Rights or Other Injury to Appellant are Questions of Fact? See, (Wilder v. Irvin, D.C. GA. 1976, 423 F. Supp. 639.) i