Nicole McCrea v. The Johns Hopkins University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999977175-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00579-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054229]. Mailed to: Nicole Rena McCrea 5205 East Capitol Street SE Washington, DC 20019. [16-2240]

Appeal: 16-2240

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2240

NICOLE RENA MCCREA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; DEXTER SMITH; EILEEN HAASE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00579-JKB)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Rena McCrea, Appellant Pro Se. Elena D. Marcuss, Adam Thomas Simons,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2240

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Nicole Rena McCrea appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her
complaint asserting claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000d – 2000d-7 (2012); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1681–1688 (2012); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794
(2012); Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–
12165 (2012); and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 (2012). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. McCrea v. The Johns
Hopkins Univ., No. 1:15-cv-00579-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2016). 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.

DISMISSED

2