Filed: May 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1564 L. HALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ST. MARY’S SEMINARY & UNIVERSITY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-03281-BEL) Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie R. Ste
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1564 L. HALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ST. MARY’S SEMINARY & UNIVERSITY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-03281-BEL) Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie R. Stel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1564
L. HALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ST. MARY’S SEMINARY & UNIVERSITY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District
Judge. (1:08-cv-03281-BEL)
Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie R. Stellman, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A., Towson,
Maryland, for Appellant. David G. Sommer, Steven G. Metzger,
GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
L. Hall appeals the district court’s order granting
the University’s motion to dismiss her claims, brought pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101 (2006); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l (2006); and Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (2006), as well as
her breach of contract claim. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. See Hall v. St. Mary’s Seminary & Univ.,
No. 1:08-cv-03281-BEL (D. Md. Apr. 16, 2009). 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
2