Case Name: Mary Margaret DAGGY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAUNTON CITY SCHOOLS, in its corporate status; Shelley P. Bryant; Chair Gregory C. Cook; Dr. James J. Harrington; Ophie A. Kier; Vice Chair Andrea W. Oakes; Angie V. Whitesell; Teri Sumey, in her official and individual capacities; Nancy Haynes, in her official and individual capacities; Harry Lunsford, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-28
Citations: 158 F. App'x 487
Docket Number: No. 05-1282
Parties: Mary Margaret DAGGY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STAUNTON CITY SCHOOLS, in its corporate status; Shelley P. Bryant; Chair Gregory C. Cook; Dr. James J. Harrington; Ophie A. Kier; Vice Chair Andrea W. Oakes; Angie V. Whitesell; Teri Sumey, in her official and individual capacities; Nancy Haynes, in her official and individual capacities; Harry Lunsford, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
Mary Margaret DAGGY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STAUNTON CITY SCHOOLS, in its corporate status; Shelley P. Bryant; Chair Gregory C. Cook; Dr. James J. Harrington; Ophie A. Kier; Vice Chair Andrea W. Oakes; Angie V. Whitesell; Teri Sumey, in her official and individual capacities; Nancy Haynes, in her official and individual capacities; Harry Lunsford, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1282.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided Dec. 28, 2005.
Robert P. Dwoskin, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth S. Skilling, Jeremy D. Capps, Joseph Robinson, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mary Margaret Daggy appeals the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss her civil action in which she alleged that the defendants conspired to violate her rights to procedural and substantive due process and discriminated against her on account of her age when her job was eliminated. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion. See Daggy v. Staunton City Schs., No. CA-04-23-5 (W.D.Va. Dec. 14, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED