Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

89-2360 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-2360 Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 22, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 891 F.2d 286 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Richard ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; Raynard T. Hale, Division Superintendent, in his official and in his individual capacity; Phyliss Briscoe, Supervisor of Special Education, in her off
More

891 F.2d 286

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Richard ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; Raynard T. Hale, Division
Superintendent, in his official and in his individual
capacity; Phyliss Briscoe, Supervisor of Special Education,
in her official and in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-2360.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 1989.
Decided: Nov. 22, 1989.

Chester L. Smith and Bernard S. Via, for appellant.

Gary E. Tegenkamp and Susan W. Spangler, Fox, Wooten & Hart, P.C., for appellees.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James Richard Anderson appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Washington County School Board. Our review of the record and the opinion of the district court discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Anderson v. Washington County School Board, C/A No. 86-0053-R(A) (W.D.Va. Feb. 28, 1989). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(3); Loc.R. 34(a).

2

AFFIRMED.

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