Case Name: Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee; Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellee, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-05-08
Citations: 501 F.2d 429
Docket Number: Nos. 73-2057, 73-2058
Parties: Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee. Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellee, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 501
Pages: 429–434

Head Matter:
Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee. Charlie J. SINGLETON, Appellee, v. VANCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant.
Nos. 73-2057, 73-2058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1973.
Decided May 8, 1974.
Rehearing Denied July 5, 1974.
James E. Lanning, Charlotte, N. C. (Adam Stein, James E. Ferguson II, Charlotte, N. C., Jack Greenberg, Norman J. Chachkin, New York City, Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning, Charlotte, N. C., on brief) for appellant in No. 73-2057 and for appellee in No. 73-2058.
George T. Blackburn, Henderson, N. C. (Robert G. Kittrell, Jr., Charles F. Blackburn, Bennett H. Perry, Jr., Perry, Kittrell, Blackburn & Blackburn, Henderson, N. C., on brief), for appellee in No. 73-2057 and for appellant in No. 73-2058.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Asserting a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Charlie J. Singleton instituted this suit against the Vance County Board of Education asking compensatory damages and injunctive relief for the allegedly unlawful termination of his employment as a school teacher. The district court entered judgment in favor of Singleton, awarding damages and attorney fees, and the Board has appealed. Challenging the computative basis of his damages Singleton has filed a cross-appeal.
While it has been raised by neither party, a serious jurisdictional question requires that we remand this case to the district court. The plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under only 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4), but since the Board of Education, the only named defendant, is not a "person" subject to suit under § 1983, jurisdiction cannot lie under those statutory sections. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973).
Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with leave to the plaintiff to amend the jurisdictional allegations of his complaint should he be so advised and, in such event, for further consideration of the jurisdictional question by the court.
Remanded.