Court Opinion

ID: 988222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:49:40.508795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:12.239788
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANCES K. INGRAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; THE
BOYS' LATIN SCHOOL OF MARYLAND,
INCORPORATED; BRYN MAWR SCHOOL;
CALVERT SCHOOL; CAPITOL HILL DAY
SCHOOL, INCORPORATED; GARRISON
FOREST SCHOOL, INCORPORATED;
GLENELG COUNTY SCHOOL; GREEN
ACRES SCHOOL; GILMAN SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; HOLTEN ARMS
SCHOOL; HOLY TRINITY EPISCOPAL
DAY SCHOOL; KEY SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; LANDON SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; MCDONOUGH SCHOOL;
                                   No. 95-2314
NORWOOD SCHOOL INCORPORATED;
PARK SCHOOL OF BALTIMORE; QUEEN
ANNE SCHOOL; ROLAND PARK
COUNTY SCHOOL, INCORPORATED;
SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; SHERIDAN SCHOOL;
SIDWELL FRIENDS SCHOOL; ST.
ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; ST. PAUL'S
SCHOOL FOR GIRLS; NATIONAL
CATHEDRAL; ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT MARYLAND SCHOOLS,
INCORPORATED; BALTIMORE
EDUCATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP TRUST,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-267-JFM)

Submitted: November 14, 1995

Decided: January 16, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Frances K. Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor-
ney General, Mark Jason Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Balti-
more, Maryland; Thomas Dennehy Washburne, Sr., OBER, KALER,
GRIMES & SHRIVER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her
claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court cor-
rectly determined that the Appellant lacked standing to assert a claim

                    2
against twenty-five of the twenty-eight Defendants. As to the other
three Defendants, we find that Appellant has failed to make the requi-
site prima facie case for any of her claims. Her Title VII and 42
U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 1994) claims fail to meet this standard
because Appellant has not alleged that she applied and was qualified
for a particular job or that the Defendants continued to seek applicants
of her qualifications after her rejection. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West
1994); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802
(1973). Her Title VI claim fails because Appellant has not alleged that
the Defendants receive federal financial assistance for the primary
purpose of employment, or that she was the intended beneficiary of
any such assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3 (1988); Soberal-Perez v.
Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 38 (2d Cir. 1983). Finally, her equal protection
claim fails because the hiring decisions of private institutions do not
constitute state action. See Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S.
244, 247 (1963). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order.

In light of this disposition, Appellees' motion to strike is denied as
moot. 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
_________________________________________________________________
*We find that the failure to give Appellant proper notice under
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was, at most, harm-
less error because the error did not affect Appellant's substantial rights.
See United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 211 (4th Cir. 1988). For the
same reason, the failure to rule on Appellant's motion for default judg-
ment was harmless error.

                    3