# Maupin v. Howard County Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 1, 2011

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/213814

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 1, 2011
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/213814

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1895

MICHELLE MAUPIN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION; RESTIA WHITAKER, individually and in his
official capacity; CHRISTIAN J. CALLENDER, individually and
in his official capacity; JOHN L. SEIBEL, individually and
in his official capacity; ROBYN MCDONALD, individually and
in her official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge.
(1:08-cv-02203-BPG)

Submitted: March 24, 2011 Decided: April 1, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michelle Maupin, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, Lisa Y.
Settles, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Michelle Maupin appeals the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing her civil complaint. * We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Maupin v. Howard Cnty.

Bd. of Educ., No. 1:08-cv-02203-BPG (D. Md. July 15, 2010). 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

*
This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the
parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/213814. Public record. Not legal advice.