Court Opinion

ID: 9401068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:48.438568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.621588
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1559      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1559

        JOHN DOE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY; RICHARD LILLEY,
        Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services; SCOTT ECKHARDT, Director
        of Student Conduct and Title IX Coordinator; ERIC WASHINGTON, Student
        Conduct Administrator; SARAH MORALES, CCBC Philosophy Coordinator of
        Essex & Dundalk Campuses; PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-02575-GLR)

        Submitted: May 22, 2023                                              Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan F. Dunham, Clifford Bernard Geiger, KOLLMAN &
        SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1559      Doc: 17        Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging that Defendants engaged in disability

        discrimination and retaliation, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

        29 U.S.C. § 794. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s orders dismissing his

        complaint for failure to state a claim, denying his motion to file under a pseudonym, and

        denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Doe v. Cmty. Coll. of Balt. Cnty.,

        No. 1:19-cv-02575-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2020 & Apr. 15, 2021). 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

                                                    2