Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02459/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02459-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Bowers
Appellee
Susan DeGraba
Appellee
Richard Johnston
Appellee
Judith Jones
Appellant
Montgomery County Education Association
Appellee
Montgomery County Public Schools
Appellee
Doug Prouty
Appellee
Jerry Weast
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2459

JUDITH JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, school administrators, 

resource teachers and its employees, human resources, 

employment & retirement service center director; JERRY 

WEAST, Superintendent born Joshua Starr; LARRY BOWERS, 

Superintendent; SUSAN DEGRABA; RICHARD JOHNSTON; MONTGOMERY 

COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; DOUG PROUTY, President and 

MCEA representatives & its employees,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14-

cv-04042-PWG)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-2459 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Judith Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE 

OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland; Christopher Mark 

Feldenzer, SEROTTE ROCKMAN & WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2459 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Judith Jones appeals the district court’s order granting in 

part and denying in part* Montgomery County Education Association 

and Doug Prouty’s motion to dismiss Jones’ claims against them, 

and granting the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss Jones’ 

claims against them. Jones has also filed a motion for a 

restraining order and a pre-filing injunction. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in Jones’ informal 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jones’ informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Jones has forfeited appellate review of the 

district court’s order. Moreover, Jones’ pending motion does 

not establish that she is entitled to the relief she seeks. 

Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a restraining order and a 

pre-filing injunction and affirm the district court’s order. 

Jones v. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Sch., No. 8:14-cv-04042-PWG (D. 

Md. filed Oct. 21, 2015, entered Oct. 22, 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

 * The district court’s order denied these Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss only to the extent the motion sought a pre-filing 

injunction against Jones. The district court’s order 

nonetheless dismissed all of Jones’ claims against these 

Defendants. 

Appeal: 15-2459 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-2459 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 4 of 4