TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anderson v. Washington County School Bd.

James Richard Anderson v. Washington County School Board Raynard T. Hale, Division Superintendent, in His Official and in His Individual Capacity Phyliss Briscoe, Supervisor of Special Education, in Her Official and in Her Individual Capacity

Anderson v. Wash. Cnty. Sch. Bd., 891 F.2d 286 (4th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 22, 1989
Docket
No. 89-2360
Citations
891 F.2d 2861989 WL 1416741989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17582
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

891 F.2d 286

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Richard ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; Raynard T. Hale, Division Superintendent, in his official and in his individual capacity; Phyliss Briscoe, Supervisor of Special Education, in her official and in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-2360.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 1989. Decided: Nov. 22, 1989.

Chester L. Smith and Bernard S. Via, for appellant.

Gary E. Tegenkamp and Susan W. Spangler, Fox, Wooten & Hart, P.C., for appellees.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James Richard Anderson appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Washington County School Board. Our review of the record and the opinion of the district court discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Anderson v. Washington County School Board, C/A No. 86-0053-R(A) (W.D.Va. Feb. 28, 1989). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(3); Loc.R. 34(a).

2

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list