Court Opinion

ID: 9899111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 21:00:38.460631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:43.518629
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1835      Doc: 47         Filed: 11/14/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1835

        UNITED STATES EX REL. PATRICK DONOHUE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT; SCOTT A. ZIEGLER,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00189-AJT-IDD)

        Submitted: October 12, 2023                                 Decided: November 14, 2023

        Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Rory J. Bellantoni, David J. Markese, BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP,
        New York, New York, for Appellant.         John F. Cafferky, Michael K. Kim,
        BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1835      Doc: 47          Filed: 11/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Relator Patrick Donohue appeals the district court’s order granting the motion to

        dismiss of Appellees Loudoun County Public School District and Scott A. Ziegler pursuant

        to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court determined that Appellant

        failed to state a claim under the False Claims Act and Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers

        Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court for the reasons stated in its thorough and well reasoned order.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court, and oral argument would not aid

        our decision.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2