UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN A. RATNER, a minor, by 

and through his mother and next

friend, Beth Haney; BETH HANEY,

individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

EDGAR B. HATRICK, individually and

in his official capacity as Division

Superintendent, Loudoun County

Public Schools; HARRY E. BIBB,  No. 00-2157

individually and in his official

capacity as Superintendent’s

Designee, Loudoun County Public

Schools; JOSEPH L. MAUCK,

individually and in his official

capacity as Principal, Blue Ridge

Middle School; ROBERTA GRIFFITH,

individually and in her official

capacity as Assistant Principal, Blue

Ridge Middle School,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-00-944-A)

Argued: May 8, 2001

Decided: July 30, 2001

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Hamilton wrote

a concurring opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Steven Henry Aden, THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE,

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants. John Otto Easton, JORDAN,

COYNE & SAVITS, L.L.P., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. ON

BRIEF: Carol T. Stone, Anna M. Stafford, JORDAN, COYNE &

SAVITS, L.L.P., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

In October 1999, Benjamin Ratner, age 13, was in the eighth grade

at Blue Ridge Middle School in Loudoun County, Virginia.1 On October 8, 1999, a schoolmate told Ratner that she had been suicidal the

previous evening and had contemplated killing herself by slitting her

wrists. She also told Ratner that she inadvertently had brought a knife

to school in her binder that morning. Ratner had known her for two

years, was aware of her previous suicide attempts, and feared for her

safety. Thus, he took the binder from her and put it in his locker. He

did not tell school authorities about the knife, but he intended to tell

both his and her parents after school. 

By lunchtime that day, Roberta Griffith, Assistant Principal at the

school, had learned that the girl might have given a knife to Ratner.

1Our recitation of the facts of this case are those found in Ratner’s

complaint, which we accept as true for the purposes of this appeal.

Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir. 1999). 

2 RATNER v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Eventually, Fanny Kellogg, Dean at the school, summoned Ratner to

her office and asked him about the knife. Ratner admitted that he had

it, and at Kellogg’s direction he went alone to his locker, retrieved the

binder, and gave it to Kellogg. Kellogg acknowledged that she

believed Ratner acted in what he saw as the girl’s best interest and

that at no time did Ratner pose a threat to harm anyone with the knife.

Nonetheless, Ratner was then suspended by Griffith for 10 days for

possessing a knife on school grounds in violation of school board policy. Four days later, the school’s principal, Joseph Mauck, affirmed

Ratner’s suspension with written notice. Two days after that, Edgar

Hatrick, Division Superintendent for the Loudoun County Public

Schools, issued written notice informing Ratner that he was being

suspended indefinitely pending further action by the school board,

and informing Ratner that Hatrick was recommending to an administrative hearing panel that Ratner be suspended for the remainder of

the school term, which ended February 1, 2000. The administrative

hearing panel met on October 29, 1999, and recommended Ratner be

suspended for the remainder of the term, and Hatrick then gave Ratner written notice of his long-term suspension. Ratner’s mother, Beth

Haney, requested and received a hearing before the school district’s

Discipline Committee to appeal, but that committee unanimously

approved Ratner’s long-term suspension. 

Ratner, through his mother, filed suit against the school district and

four of its employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ratner’s complaint

asserted that his suspension under what is called a zero tolerance policy2

2Ratner’s complaint asserts that the school employs a zero tolerance

policy regarding weapons, a policy that precludes officials from considering the circumstances of a particular case when meting out punishment.

Although we accept Ratner’s assertion as true for the purposes of this

appeal, we note that his brief’s recitation of the school’s policies indicates that possession of a weapon on school grounds would not necessarily result in long-term suspension. Instead, as recited by Ratner, board

policy in such cases apparently begins with a presumption that offending

students will be expelled (permanently removed) but allows school officials discretion to subject offending students "to such lesser disciplinary

action, including long-term suspension [suspension for one or two

semesters], as may be deemed appropriate." 

RATNER v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3
amounted to violations of Ratner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to

due process and equal protection and his Eighth Amendment right to

be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and asserted several other

causes of action, and sought compensatory and punitive damages,

fees and costs, and other relief. 

The district court dismissed Ratner’s complaint for failure to state

a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We review de novo a district

court’s decision to dismiss a case for failure to state a claim. Mayes

v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir. 1999). In reviewing a

12(b)(6) dismissal, we construe factual allegations in the nonmoving

party’s favor, treating them as true, and we will affirm a dismissal for

failure to state a claim only if it appears that the plaintiffs would not

be entitled to relief under any facts which could be proved in support

of their claims. Mayes, 198 F.3d at 460 (quotations and citations omitted). Having heard oral argument and considering the briefs and the

record, we find no reversible error, and we affirm substantially for the

same reasons expressed by the district court in its opinion, Ratner v.

Loudoun County Pub. Sch., Civ. No. 00-944-A (E.D. Va. July 28,

2000). 

In its memorandum opinion, the district court concluded Ratner’s

claim was, in essence, a claim of due process violations. The district

court also concluded, correctly, that the school officials gave Ratner

constitutionally sufficient, even if imperfect, process in the various

notices and hearings it accorded him, and we agree. See Goss v.

Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581 (1975) (describing process due students in

connection with suspensions from school). 

However harsh the result in this case, the federal courts are not

properly called upon to judge the wisdom of a zero tolerance policy

of the sort alleged to be in place at Blue Ridge Middle School or of

its application to Ratner. Instead, our inquiry here is limited to

whether Ratner’s complaint alleges sufficient facts which if proved

would show that the implementation of the school’s policy in this

case failed to comport with the United States Constitution. We conclude that the facts alleged in this case do not so demonstrate. 

The judgment of the district court is accordingly 

AFFIRMED.

4 RATNER v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring: 

On appeal, Ratner challenges the district court’s dismissal of three

federal constitutional claims alleged in his complaint: (1) a procedural

due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) a cruel and

unusual punishment claim under the Eighth Amendment. U.S. Const.

amend. VIII, XIV, § 1. After accepting all well-pleaded allegations in

Ratner’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in his favor, it appears certain that he cannot

prove any set of facts which would entitle him to relief on any of the

three claims asserted. Accordingly, the opinion for the court correctly

affirms the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Ratner’s claims,

and I am constrained to concur in that opinion. Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999) ("[A] Rule 12(b)(6)

motion should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded

allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor, it

appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief."). 

I write separately to express my compassion for Ratner, his family,

and common sense. Each is the victim of good intentions run amuck.

Ratner’s complaint alleges that school suspensions for possession of

a weapon on Loudoun County school property are imposed automatically, pursuant to a zero-tolerance policy that precludes consideration

of the facts and circumstances of a particular student’s conduct in

determining a violation of stated policy and the resulting student punishment. There is no doubt that this zero-tolerance/automatic suspension policy, and others like it adopted by school officials throughout

our nation, were adopted in large response to the tragic school shootings that have plagued our nation’s schools over the past several

years. Also, no doubt exists that in adopting these zerotolerance/automatic suspension policies, school officials had the noble

intention of protecting the health and safety of our nation’s school

children and those adults charged with the profound responsibility of

educating them. However, as the oft repeated old English maxim recognizes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The panic

over school violence and the intent to stop it has caused school officials to jettison the common sense idea that a person’s punishment

RATNER v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5
should fit his crime in favor of a single harsh punishment, namely,

mandatory school suspension. Such a policy has stripped away judgment and discretion on the part of those administering it; refuting the

well established precept that judgment is the better part of wisdom.

Here, a young man, Ratner, took a binder containing a knife from

a suicidal fellow student in an effort to save her life. He put the binder

in his locker without even opening it. Indeed, at all times, Ratner

never saw the knife. Further, the facts do not offer even the hint of

a suggestion that Ratner ever intended to personally possess the knife

or harm anyone with it. In fact, the first school official on the scene

reported that at no time did Ratner intend to harm anyone with the

knife. Yet, based on the school’s zero-tolerance/automatic suspension

policy, Ratner was suspended from school for nearly four months. 

School officials should, without doubt, punish a student for knowingly and intentionally bringing a dangerous weapon on school property. But the question raised by the facts of Ratner’s case is one of

degree and the law must be flexible enough so that school officials

may intrude upon the right to a free appropriate public education only

in the most justifiable circumstances. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S.

565, 573-74 (1975) (holding that property interest in public education

is created when state maintains a public school system and requires

children to attend). Under a facts/circumstances-sensitive examination

of this case, Ratner’s nearly four-month suspension from middle

school is not justifiable. Indeed, it is a calculated overkill when the

punishment is considered in light of Ratner’s good-faith intentions

and his, at best, if at all, technical violation of the school’s policy.

Suffice it to say that the degree of Ratner’s violation of school policy

does not correlate with the degree of his punishment. Certainly, the

oft repeated maxim, "there is no justice without mercy" has been

defiled by the results obtained here. But alas, as the opinion for the

court explains, this is not a federal constitutional problem.

6 RATNER v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS