Judith Jones v. Montgomery Public School

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to amend/correct [999396127-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02795-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999426846]. Mailed to: Jones. [14-1505]

Appeal: 14-1505

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1505

JUDITH JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MCPS); JERRY WEAST, nee
Joshua
Starr,
Superintendents;
LARRY
BOWERS;
SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS; RESOURCE TEACHERS AND ITS EMPLOYEES; SUSAN
DEGRABA; HUMAN RESOURCES AND ITS EMPLOYEES; EMPLOYMENT &
RETIREMENT
SERVICE
CENTER
(ERSC);
DIRECTOR
RICHARD
JOHNSTONE; PRESIDENT DOUG PROUTY, and MCEA Representatives &
Its Employees; MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
(MCEA),
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-02795-GLR)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judith Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE
OF
THE
COUNTY
ATTORNEY,
Rockville,
Maryland,
Patricia
Prestigiacomo
Via,
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE,
Rockville,

Appeal: 14-1505

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Maryland; Jeffrey Elliot Rockman, SEROTTE, ROCKMAN & WESCOTT,
PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1505

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Judith Jones appeals from the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil claims against
them and she has filed a motion to amend her informal brief.
Although we grant Jones’ motion to amend her informal brief, we
have limited our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and affirm the district court’s
order.

See Jones v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Sch., No. 8:13-cv-

02795-GLR (D. Md. May 15, 2014).

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3