Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1765 DEBBIE COGHILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:14-cv-02767-GJH) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1765 DEBBIE COGHILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:14-cv-02767-GJH) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1765
DEBBIE COGHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:14-cv-02767-GJH)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debbie Coghill, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, Wayne
Bennett Wiseman, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debbie Coghill appeals from the district court’s orders granting the Board of
Education for Prince George’s County summary judgment on her claims brought pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and
denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Coghill v. Board of Educ. for Prince George’s Cty., No. 8:14-cv-02767-GJH (D. Md. Mar.
17, 2017; filed June 23, 2017 & entered June 26, 2017). 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