U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

DeLullo v. Jefferson Cnty Bd Educ

DeLullo v. Jefferson Cnty Bd Educ
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 23, 1999

DeLullo v. Jefferson Cnty Bd Educ

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1941

LUKE DELULLO, a minor by his parents and next friends, Cindy and Daniel DeLullo; CINDY A.

DELULLO; DANIEL DELULLO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; B. JUDSON ROMINE, officially, Superintendent, Jefferson County Public Schools, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-8-3)

Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

* Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Luke DeLullo, Cindy A. Delullo, Daniel Delullo, Appellants Pro Se.

Nancy W. Brown, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Luke DeLullo, Cindy A. DeLullo, and Daniel DeLullo appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants in this action brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabili- ties Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq. (West 1990 & Supp. 1999). The plaintiffs sought Luke’s placement in a private school at public expense. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993); Hall v. Vance County Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629, 635 (4th Cir. 1985). According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See DeLullo v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-97-8-3 (N.D.W. Va. May 21, 1998). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.