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)
24-1232•Alexis Benson, and/on behalf of K.C.J.; KEVIN CARBERRY, SR., and/on behalf of K.C.J. v. Lancaster County School District, represented by
24-1232Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 27, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1232
ALEXIS BENSON, and/on behalf of K.C.J.; KEVIN CARBERRY, SR., and/on
behalf of K.C.J.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, represented by and individually;
SUPERINTENDENT JOHNATHAN PHIPPS; LINDSAY MARINO; NICOLE
LEE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE, represented
by and individually; BARBARA DRAYTON; KIMBERLY BLACKBURN;
VERNIE WILLIAMS; DAVID DUFF; MEREDITH SEIBERT; BRIAN P.
MURPHY; PERRY ZIRKEL; MITCHELL YELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (0:23-cv-01488-JDA)
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexis Carberry Benson; Kevin Carberry, Sr., Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Alexis Benson and Kevin Carberry, Sr. (“Plaintiffs”), appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Plaintiffs’ civil
action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order. We
have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d
606, 620 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. Benson v. Lancaster Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 0:23-cv-01488-JDA (D.S.C. filed
Mar. 12, 2024 & entered Mar. 13, 2024). 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.