Opinion

Marla Crawford v. Prince George's County Board of Education

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 2, 2023
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.6%

“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1430 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1430

MARLA F. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (8:20-cv-00048-JKB)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marla Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.,

Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1430 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marla F. Crawford appeals the district court’s order denying her summary judgment

motion and granting Defendant summary judgment in Crawford’s employment

discrimination action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

to issues preserved in that brief.”). We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the

arguments Crawford raises on appeal and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. Crawford v. Prince George’s Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 8:20-

cv-00048-JKB (D. Md. filed Mar. 21, 2023 & entered Mar. 22, 2023). We deny all pending

motions. 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.