Venida Marshall v. Board of Education of PG Cnty

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999166713-2] Originating case number: 8:11-cv-01232-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999298848]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-1978]

Appeal: 13-1978

Doc: 18

Filed: 02/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1978

VENIDA MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-01232-PJM)

Submitted:

January 23, 2014

Decided:

February 19, 2014

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Venida Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.
Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM,
Appellee.

Robert Judah Baror, Linda
Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1978

Doc: 18

Filed: 02/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Venida
granting

Marshall

summary

appeals

judgment

to

the

the

employment discrimination action.
and find no reversible error. ∗

district

Defendant

court’s
in

order

Marshall’s

We have reviewed the record

Accordingly, we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court at the hearing on July 2, 2013.

Marshall v.

Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01232-PJM (D.
Md. filed July 3, 2013; entered July 5, 2013).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗

In addition to challenging the district court’s rejection
of her claims on the merits, Marshall also asserts that the
district court’s order should be vacated because her counsel was
ineffective.
However, a litigant in a civil action has no
constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of
counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th
Cir. 1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 2856 (2013).

2