Lancaster v. Bd. of Educ.

Full title: COURTNEY LANCASTER, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of her…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 12, 2023

No. 21-2155 (4th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)

Opinion

21-2155

04-12-2023

COURTNEY LANCASTER, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of her Minor Child, Student Doe, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, d/b/a Baltimore County Public Schools; PRINCIPAL JASON FEILER; VICE PRINCIPAL LAUREN STUART; KELLY RUDD SAFFRAN; NINA MARTIN; BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER JENNIFER PEACH, Defendants - Appellees.

David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Glenn T. Marrow, Bradley J. Neitzel, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland; Edmund J. O'Meally, Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 31, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-03685-GLR)

ON BRIEF:

David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Glenn T. Marrow, Bradley J. Neitzel, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland; Edmund J. O'Meally, Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Courtney Lancaster appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss for failure to state a claim her civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law. Reviewing the district court's rulings partially granting the motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss de novo, see Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2021); Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014), we find no reversible error by the district court and affirm for the reasons it stated. Lancaster v. Bd. of Educ. of Balt. Cnty., No. 1:20-cv-03685-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED