The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-2257•Joyce S. Kimble v. Montgomery County Board of Education
02-2257Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 22, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2257
JOYCE S. KIMBLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION;
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MONTGOMERY
COUNTY GOVERNMENT; JERRY D. WEAST, Dr.,
Superintendent, Montgomery County Public
Schools; PAUL VANCE, Dr., Superintendent,
District of Columbia Public Schools; KATHERINE
GUTTERMAN, Division of Insurance & Retirement,
Montgomery County Public Schools; ANN
KAMENSTEIN, Human Resources Compliance
Specialist, Montgomery County Public Schools;
GARY LEVINE, Montgomery County Public Schools,
Department of Human Resources; ELIZABETH
ARONS, Dr., Associate Superintendent,
Montgomery County Public Schools; RAE WHITE,
Gaithersburg High School; FRED S. EVANS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
01-3715-PJM)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 22, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joyce S. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Prestigiacomo Via,
Assistant County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joyce S. Kimble appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Kimble v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-01-
3715-PJM (D. Md. July 31, 2002; Oct. 2, 2002). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.