# Darlene Ball-Rice v. Board of Education of PG County

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 21, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2643519

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 21, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/2643519

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1979

DARLENE BALL-RICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-01398-PJM)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darlene Ball-Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Judah Baror, Linda
Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Darlene Ball-Rice appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to Defendant in her employment

discrimination action alleging workplace harassment based on her

race and gender and retaliation. On appeal, Ball-Rice’s sole

contention is that her counsel was ineffective. However, a

litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory

right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. United

States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986); see

Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

(collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.

2856 (2013).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and affirm. 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2643519. Public record. Not legal advice.