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)
12-2270•Larry Francis Williams v. Board of Education of Wicomico County
12-2270Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 27, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2270
LARRY FRANCIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WICOMICO COUNTY; JOHN FREDERICKSEN,
Ph.D., (Individually and in his Official Capacity)
Superintendent of Schools; STEPHANIE MOSES, (Individually &
in her Official Capacity) Director of Human Resources;
THOMAS FIELD, (Individually & in his Official Capacity)
Former Interim Superintendent; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
Individually & in their Official Capacities; WILLIAM CAIN,
Individually & in his Official Capacity, Assistant
Superintendent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-03582-WMN)
Submitted: January 23, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Francis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew G. Scott,
Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland;
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Cullen B. Casey, Gregory Lee VanGeison, ANDERSON, COE & KING,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Larry Francis Williams appeals the district court’s
order awarding the Defendants summary judgment on his equal
protection claim, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), race
discrimination claim, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006),
and defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Wicomico Cnty.,
No. 1:10-cv-03582-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2012). We deny Williams’
motion for appointment of counsel. 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.