Court Opinion

ID: 9386873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 21:00:25.812574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:09.179711
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155     Doc: 17         Filed: 04/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2155

        COURTNEY LANCASTER, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of her
        Minor Child, Student Doe,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, d/b/a Baltimore County
        Public Schools; PRINCIPAL JASON FEILER; VICE PRINCIPAL LAUREN
        STUART; KELLY RUDD SAFFRAN; NINA MARTIN; BALTIMORE COUNTY,
        MARYLAND; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER
        JENNIFER PEACH,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-03685-GLR)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                      Decided: April 12, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellant. Glenn T. Marrow, Bradley J. Neitzel, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF
        LAW, Towson, Maryland; Edmund J. O’Meally, Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW,
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/12/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155      Doc: 17          Filed: 04/12/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Courtney Lancaster appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying

        in part Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss for failure to

        state a claim her civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law. Reviewing

        the district court’s rulings partially granting the motions for judgment on the pleadings and

        to dismiss de novo, see Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir.

        2021); Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014), we find no reversible

        error by the district court and affirm for the reasons it stated. Lancaster v. Bd. of Educ. of

        Balt. Cnty., No. 1:20-cv-03685-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 13, 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

                                                      3