The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1543
SANDRA HARMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a/k/a Cumberland
County School District North Carolina; MARIE PIERCE-FORD,
individually and in her capacity as Principal of Luther Nick
Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School; LARISSA
PERKINS, in her capacity as Asst. Principal of Luther Nick
Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School (NOMINAL);
STAFFORD DANIELS, in her capacity as Asst. Principal of
Luther Nick Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School
(NOMINAL); DR. JAMES MCLAUCHLIN, Chair of Cumberland County
Board of Education, School Board Members; DR. FRANK TILL,
Superintendant Cumberland County Board of Education Schools;
JOSEPH LOCKLEAR, Deceased, in his former capacity as
Associate Superintendent of Cumberland County Schools
(NOMINAL),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00485-BR)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. James Scott Lewis, Conor
Patrick Regan, HEDRICK, GARDNER, KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, LLP,
Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Harmon appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint brought pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and also alleging equal protection
and due process violations. 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. Harmon v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No.
5:15-cv-00485-BR (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2016). We deny as moot
Harmon’s motion to expedite ruling. 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
3