Roy Rippeon v. Frederick County Board of Education

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Roy Rippeon v. Frederick County Board of Education

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reference

Status
Unpublished