Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

95-1072 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1072 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 20, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 59 F.3d 168 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert A. WIECH; Helen H. Wiech, acting en loco parentis on behalf of their children Sarah C. Wiech and Christopher Wiech and individually on their own behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVEL
More

59 F.3d 168
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Robert A. WIECH; Helen H. Wiech, acting en loco parentis on
behalf of their children Sarah C. Wiech and
Christopher Wiech and individually on
their own behalf, Plaintiffs--Appellants,
v.
FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT; Fairfax
County Public Schools, DEFENDANTS--Appellees.

No. 95-1072.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 20, 1995.

Robert A. Wiech, Helen H. Wiech, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis Roane Bates, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, VA; Thomas John Cawley, John Francis Cafferky, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Fairfax, VA, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellants appeal from the district court's order dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion rendered from the bench, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wiech v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., No. 94-1492-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 1994); see 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1415 (West 1990 & Supp.1995); Susan R.M. v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist., 818 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.1987). 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.

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