# Gibbs v. Dorchester County Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 2, 2017 · 698 F. App'x 75

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4208324

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary Woolford GIBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DORCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 2, 2017
- **Citations:** 698 F. App'x 75
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Motz, King
- **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/4208324

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1045

MARY WOOLFORD GIBBS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DORCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Mark Coulson, Magistrate Judge. (1:16-cv-00395-JMC)

Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin R. Cockey, Ashley A. Bosché, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC,
Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Lisa Y. Settles, Adam E. Konstas, PESSIN KATZ
LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mary Woolford Gibbs appeals the magistrate judge’s * order granting summary

judgment on her claim alleging that the Dorchester County Board of Education

undercompensated her because of her race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate

judge. See Gibbs v. Dorchester Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:16-cv-00395-JMC (D. Md. Jan.

6, 2017). 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

*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636 (2012).

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4208324. Public record. Not legal advice.