Opinion
No. 12-2270
02-27-2013
LARRY FRANCIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WICOMICO COUNTY; JOHN FREDERICKSEN, Ph.D., (Individually and in his Official Capacity) Superintendent of Schools; STEPHANIE MOSES, (Individually & in her Official Capacity) Director of Human Resources; THOMAS FIELD, (Individually & in his Official Capacity) Former Interim Superintendent; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, Individually & in their Official Capacities; WILLIAM CAIN, Individually & in his Official Capacity, Assistant Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees.
Larry Francis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Cullen B. Casey, Gregory Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-03582-WMN) Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Francis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Cullen B. Casey, Gregory Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Larry Francis Williams appeals the district court's order awarding the Defendants summary judgment on his equal protection claim, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), race discrimination claim, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), and defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Wicomico Cnty., No. 1:10-cv-03582-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2012). We deny Williams' motion for appointment of counsel. 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