The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-1559•John Doe v. Community College of Baltimore County
21-1559Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 8, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1559
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY; RICHARD LILLEY,
Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services; SCOTT ECKHARDT, Director
of Student Conduct and Title IX Coordinator; ERIC WASHINGTON, Student
Conduct Administrator; SARAH MORALES, CCBC Philosophy Coordinator of
Essex & Dundalk Campuses; PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-02575-GLR)
Submitted: May 22, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan F. Dunham, Clifford Bernard Geiger, KOLLMAN &
SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging that Defendants engaged in disability
discrimination and retaliation, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s orders dismissing his
complaint for failure to state a claim, denying his motion to file under a pseudonym, and
denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Doe v. Cmty. Coll. of Balt. Cnty.,
No. 1:19-cv-02575-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2020 & Apr. 15, 2021). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.