Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dance v. Elizabeth City-Pasq, 96-1083 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1083 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1083 EULA DANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELIZABETH CITY-PASQUOTANK BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH W. PEEL, Doctor; CLEVELAND HAWKINS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-1287 EULA DANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELIZABETH CITY-PASQUOTANK BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH W. PEEL, Doctor; CLEVELAND HAWKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabe
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                              No. 96-1083



EULA DANCE,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ELIZABETH CITY-PASQUOTANK BOARD OF EDUCATION;
JOSEPH W. PEEL, Doctor; CLEVELAND HAWKINS,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.




                              No. 96-1287



EULA DANCE,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ELIZABETH CITY-PASQUOTANK BOARD OF EDUCATION;
JOSEPH W. PEEL, Doctor; CLEVELAND HAWKINS,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.




Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-94-44-2-H2)


Submitted:    July 23, 1996                 Decided:   July 30, 1996
2
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eula Dance, Appellant Pro Se. John David Leidy, HORNTHAL, RILEY,
ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).




PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying re-
lief on her 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and granting in part

the Appellees' motion for costs. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord-

ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dance v.
Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Bd. of Educ., No. CA-94-44-2-H2 (E.D.N.C.
Nov. 6, 1995; Feb. 5, 1996). 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.




                                                          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