Opinion

DeLullo v. Jefferson Cnty Bd Educ

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 23, 1999
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.0%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1941

LUKE DELULLO, a minor by his parents and next

friends, Cindy and Daniel DeLullo; CINDY A.

DELULLO; DANIEL DELULLO,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; B. JUDSON

ROMINE, officially, Superintendent, Jefferson

County Public Schools,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-

trict of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, Dis-

trict Judge. (CA-97-8-3)

Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

*

Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel in this case but

died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is

filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Luke DeLullo, Cindy A. Delullo, Daniel Delullo, Appellants Pro Se.

Nancy W. Brown, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Luke DeLullo, Cindy A. DeLullo, and Daniel DeLullo appeal the

district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants

in this action brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabili-

ties Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq. (West 1990 & Supp.

1999). The plaintiffs sought Luke’s placement in a private school

at public expense. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See Florence County

Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993); Hall v. Vance

County Bd. of Educ., 774 F.2d 629, 635 (4th Cir. 1985). According-

ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See DeLullo

v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-97-8-3 (N.D.W. Va. May 21,

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

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.