# J.J. v. Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 18, 2004 · 100 F. App'x 927

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013477

## Case

- **Full name:** J.J., a Minor, by Her Parents and Next Friends, G.J. and J.A.; J.A.; G.J., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; Jerry D. Weast, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent, Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 18, 2004
- **Citations:** 100 F. App'x 927
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Williams, Motz, Traxler
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013477

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1396

J.J., a minor, by her parents and next
friends, G.J. and J.A.; J.A.; G.J.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; JERRY
D. WEAST, in his official capacity as
Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
02-491-PJM)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeanne Asherman, ASHERMAN LAW & MEDIATION OFFICE, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellants. Edmund W. Law, Zvi Greismann, Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

J.J., a disabled child, by and through her parents,

appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

favor of the Defendants on her complaint filed pursuant to the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.

§ 1400 et seq. (2000), as well as the district court’s order

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

J.J. v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery Co., No. CA-02-491-PJM (D. Md.

Mar. 26, 2003 & Feb. 10, 2003). Given this disposition, we also

deny counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation and for the

appointment of new counsel. We grant the Appellees’ motion to

submit this appeal on the briefs, and we dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013477. Public record. Not legal advice.