Roy Rippeon v. Frederick County Board of Education ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED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.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1716

Filed Date: 2/2/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021