Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bloom v. School Bd Stafford, 95-2569 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2569 Visitors: 33
Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2569 PAUL J. BLOOM; YVONNE BLOOM; JOSEPH SCOTT BLOOM, Minor, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF STAFFORD, VIR- GINIA; DORIS TORRICE, School Board Chairwoman; RUSSELL WATSON, Superintendent; ANDREIA BENGIER, Director of Special Education Pro- grams; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexand
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2569 PAUL J. BLOOM; YVONNE BLOOM; JOSEPH SCOTT BLOOM, Minor, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF STAFFORD, VIR- GINIA; DORIS TORRICE, School Board Chairwoman; RUSSELL WATSON, Superintendent; ANDREIA BENGIER, Director of Special Education Pro- grams; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-661-A) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul J. Bloom, Yvonne Bloom, Joseph Scott Bloom, Appellants Pro Se. Kathleen Shepherd Mehfoud, HAZEL & THOMAS, P.C., Richmond, Vir- ginia; Alison Paige Landry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order declining to assert jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 1400-1485 (West 1990 & Supp. 1995). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Bloom v. School Bd. Stafford, No. CA-95-661-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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