Case Name: T.O., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his mother, Katrina HAYES; Katrina Hayes, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Frank Till, Cumberland County Schools; Susan Williams, Cumberland County Board of Education; Judge Selina M. Brooks, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-28
Citations: 696 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 17-1470
Parties: T.O., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his mother, Katrina HAYES; Katrina Hayes, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Frank Till, Cumberland County Schools; Susan Williams, Cumberland County Board of Education; Judge Selina M. Brooks, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
T.O., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his mother, Katrina HAYES; Katrina Hayes, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Frank Till, Cumberland County Schools; Susan Williams, Cumberland County Board of Education; Judge Selina M. Brooks, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1470
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 28, 2017
T.O.; Katrina Hayes, Appellants Pro Se. James G. Middlebrooks, MIDDLE-BROOKS LAW PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Judith Maria Estevez, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
T.O., a minor, by and through his mother, and Katrina Hayes, appeal the district court's order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss T.O. and Hayes' civil action related to the minor child's education. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. T.O. v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:16-cv-00853-FL, 2017 WL 979025 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 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