Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wiggins v. Martin County BD Educ, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    Shirley Wiggins and Ronnie Howell filed a lawsuit against the Martin County Board of Education and several individuals alleging violations of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal. The appellate court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the district court's decision and in the file, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2118

    Original Title

    Wiggins v. Martin County Bd Educ, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shirley Wiggins and Ronnie Howell filed a lawsuit against the Martin County Board of Education and several individuals alleging violations of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal. The appellate court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the district court's decision and in the file, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views3 pages

    Wiggins v. Martin County BD Educ, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shirley Wiggins and Ronnie Howell filed a lawsuit against the Martin County Board of Education and several individuals alleging violations of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The district court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's dismissal. The appellate court concluded that the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the district court's decision and in the file, so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2118

    SHIRLEY WIGGINS; RONNIE HOWELL,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KAREN
    DAMERON; REATHA GARNER, deceased; ANGELA
    MATTHEWS; WILLIE C. PEELE; LISA GAULS; JANET
    KALLEN; TOM DAILY; BONITA ANDREWS; BRENDA
    WHITE; PERRY JAMES; ANGELA FREEMAN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (CA-04-17-4-FL(4))

    Submitted:

    February 28, 2005

    Decided:

    March 18, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shirley Wiggins, Ronnie Howell, Appellants Pro Se. Donna Rhea


    Rascoe, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal the district courts order dismissing
    this action filed under the Family Education Rights and Privacy
    Act.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See

    Wiggins

    v.

    Martin

    County

    Bd.

    of

    Ed.,

    No.

    CA-04-17-4-FL(4) (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 18, 2004 & entered Aug. 19,
    2004).

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like