Ralph Hayes v. Lynchburg City School Board

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999435486-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999343559-2] Originating case number: 6:13-cv-00008-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444578]. Mailed to: Ralph Hayes. [14-1328]

Appeal: 14-1328

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1328

RALPH L. HAYES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LYNCHBURG CITY SCHOOL BOARD, as constituted by Mary Ann H.
Barker, Dr. Regina T. Dolan-Sewell, Charlie White, Jenny
Poore, J. Marie Walker, Thomas H. Webb, Albert Billingsly,
Katie Snydor, and Treney Tweedy, Members of the School
Board,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cv-00008-NKM-RSB)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph L. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip Verne Anderson, John
Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1328

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
In

this

discrimination,

Title

Ralph

L.

VII

Hayes

action

appeals

alleging

the

district

racial
court’s

order granting Lynchburg City School Board’s motion for summary
judgment.
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we deny Hayes’ motion for the appointment

of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Hayes v. Lynchburg City Sch. Bd., No. 6:13-cv-00008-NKM-

RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2014).
motion to quash.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We deny as moot the School Board’s

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2