Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Judith Jones v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 14-1505 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1505 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1505 JUDITH JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MCPS); JERRY WEAST, nee Joshua Starr, Superintendents; LARRY BOWERS; SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS; RESOURCE TEACHERS AND ITS EMPLOYEES; SUSAN DEGRABA; HUMAN RESOURCES AND ITS EMPLOYEES; EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT SERVICE CENTER (ERSC); DIRECTOR RICHARD JOHNSTONE; PRESIDENT DOUG PROUTY, and MCEA Representatives & Its Employees; MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATION A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1505 JUDITH JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MCPS); JERRY WEAST, nee Joshua Starr, Superintendents; LARRY BOWERS; SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS; RESOURCE TEACHERS AND ITS EMPLOYEES; SUSAN DEGRABA; HUMAN RESOURCES AND ITS EMPLOYEES; EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT SERVICE CENTER (ERSC); DIRECTOR RICHARD JOHNSTONE; PRESIDENT DOUG PROUTY, and MCEA Representatives & Its Employees; MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (MCEA), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (8:13-cv-02795-GLR) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judith Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, Patricia Prestigiacomo Via, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Jeffrey Elliot Rockman, SEROTTE, ROCKMAN & WESCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Judith Jones appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil claims against them and she has filed a motion to amend her informal brief. Although we grant Jones’ motion to amend her informal brief, we have limited our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and affirm the district court’s order. See Jones v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Sch., No. 8:13-cv- 02795-GLR (D. Md. May 15, 2014). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer