# Venida Marshall v. Board of Education of PG County

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 19, 2014 · 554 F. App'x 246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2653787

## Case

- **Full name:** Venida MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 19, 2014
- **Citations:** 554 F. App'x 246
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Davis, Diaz
- **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/2653787

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1978

VENIDA MARSHALL,

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-01232-PJM)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 19, 2014

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Venida Marshall, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Venida Marshall appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Marshall’s

employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. ∗ Accordingly, we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court at the hearing on July 2, 2013. Marshall v.

Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01232-PJM (D.

Md. filed July 3, 2013; entered July 5, 2013). 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

∗
In addition to challenging the district court’s rejection
of her claims on the merits, Marshall also asserts that the
district court’s order should be vacated because her counsel was
ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no
constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of
counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. 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).

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2653787. Public record. Not legal advice.