DeLullo v. Jefferson Cnty Bd Educ
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 1400et 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished