Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-1716•Roy Rippeon v. Frederick County Board of Education
11-1716Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.02.2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1716
ROY RIPPEON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; LINDA D. BURGEE,
individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent
of Frederick County Public Schools; ROBERT R. HAGANS,
individually and in his official capacity as Senior Human
Resources Manager of Frederick County Public Schools; ROBERT
JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations of Frederick County
Public Schools; ROBERT E. WILKINSON, individually and in his
official capacity as Director of Maintenance and Operations
of Frederick County Public Schools,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CHRISTINE A. JACOBS, individually and in her official
capacity as Administrative Secretary of the Human Resources
Department of Frederick County Public Schools,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-01225-WMN)
Submitted: December 30, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Cynthia L. Maskol, WILSON, ELSER,
MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Roy Rippeon appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rippeon
v. Frederick Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:10-cv-01225-WMN (D. Md.
June 16, 2011). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.