Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Veda Pryor v. Prince George's Community College, 13-1684 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1684 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1684 VEDA PRYOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02653-JFM) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1684 VEDA PRYOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02653-JFM) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Veda Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. Vincent Daniel Palumbo, Jr., PALUMBO LAW GROUP, LLC, Fort Washington, Maryland; Adam Thomas Simons, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Veda Pryor appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Pryor’s civil action alleging breach of a voluntary resolution agreement and discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pryor v. Prince George’s Cmty. Coll., No. 8:12-cv-02653-JFM (D. Md. May 15, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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