Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dearing v. Harford Community, 98-2584 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2584 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2584 PATRICIA DEARING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARFORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, and Members of the Board of Trustees; LELAND C. SANBORN, Chair; PATRICIA A. PERLUKE, Vice Chair; ALAN W. BENTON, Doctor; CHARLES E. COPELAND, SR., Reverend; NICHOLAS L. GOUNARIS; RALPH H. JORDAN; ANN B. RAMSAY; PAUL C. SANDS; LEHMAN W. SPRY, Doctor; DIANE TROYER, Doctor, Vice President; RICHARD J. PAPPAS, Doctor; GERTRUDE B. HOPKINS, Defendants
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2584 PATRICIA DEARING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARFORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, and Members of the Board of Trustees; LELAND C. SANBORN, Chair; PATRICIA A. PERLUKE, Vice Chair; ALAN W. BENTON, Doctor; CHARLES E. COPELAND, SR., Reverend; NICHOLAS L. GOUNARIS; RALPH H. JORDAN; ANN B. RAMSAY; PAUL C. SANDS; LEHMAN W. SPRY, Doctor; DIANE TROYER, Doctor, Vice President; RICHARD J. PAPPAS, Doctor; GERTRUDE B. HOPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 96-2176-CCB) Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 5, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Dearing, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Marie Truhe, JANOFSKY & TRUHE, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dearing v. Harford Community College, No. CA-96-2176-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 15, 1998). Appellant’s motion to authorize the preparation of a tran- script at government expense is denied. 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. AFFIRMED 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