Judith Jones v. Montgomery County Public

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for a restraining order and pre-filing injunction [999747046-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-04042-PWG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778171]. [15-2459]

Appeal: 15-2459

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2459

JUDITH JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, school administrators,
resource teachers and its employees, human resources,
employment & retirement service center director; JERRY
WEAST, Superintendent born Joshua Starr; LARRY BOWERS,
Superintendent; SUSAN DEGRABA; RICHARD JOHNSTON; MONTGOMERY
COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; DOUG PROUTY, President and
MCEA representatives & its employees,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14cv-04042-PWG)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-2459

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Judith Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Silvia Carolina Kinch, OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland; Christopher Mark
Feldenzer, SEROTTE ROCKMAN & WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2459

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Judith Jones appeals the district court’s order granting in
part and denying in part * Montgomery County Education Association
and Doug Prouty’s motion to dismiss Jones’ claims against them,
and granting the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss Jones’
claims

against

them.

Jones

has

also

filed

a

motion

restraining order and a pre-filing injunction.
confine

our

brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

does

not

review

to

challenge

disposition,

Jones

the

the
has

district court’s order.

issues

raised

in

for

a

On appeal, we
Jones’

informal

Because Jones’ informal brief

basis
forfeited

for

the

district

appellate

review

court’s
of

the

Moreover, Jones’ pending motion does

not establish that she is entitled to the relief she seeks.
Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a restraining order and a
pre-filing

injunction

and

affirm

the

district

court’s

order.

Jones v. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Sch., No. 8:14-cv-04042-PWG (D.
Md. filed Oct. 21, 2015, entered Oct. 22, 2015).

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

*

The district court’s order denied these Defendants’ motion
to dismiss only to the extent the motion sought a pre-filing
injunction
against
Jones.
The
district
court’s
order
nonetheless dismissed all of Jones’ claims against these
Defendants.

3

Appeal: 15-2459

Doc: 14

adequately

Filed: 03/21/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4