Courtney Lancaster v. Board of Education of Baltimore County

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2155
COURTNEY LANCASTER, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of her
Minor Child, Student Doe,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, d/b/a Baltimore County
Public Schools; PRINCIPAL JASON FEILER; VICE PRINCIPAL LAUREN
STUART; KELLY RUDD SAFFRAN; NINA MARTIN; BALTIMORE COUNTY,
MARYLAND; BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER
JENNIFER PEACH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-03685-GLR)
Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: April 12, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Glenn T. Marrow, Bradley J. Neitzel, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF
LAW, Towson, Maryland; Edmund J. O’Meally, Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ LAW,
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2155 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Lancaster appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying
in part Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss for failure to
state a claim her civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law. Reviewing
the district court’s rulings partially granting the motions for judgment on the pleadings and
to dismiss de novo, see Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir.
2021); Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014), we find no reversible
error by the district court and affirm for the reasons it stated. Lancaster v. Bd. of Educ. of
Balt. Cnty., No. 1:20-cv-03685-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 13, 2021). 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