MUA v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY MARYLAND AFSCME (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; Verjeana M. Jacobs, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George's Public Schools; Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Individually and as superintendent; Roger Cole Thomas, Esquire; Synthia Shilling; Monica Goldson, Individually and as Associates superintendent of Prince George's Public Schools; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; Association of Classified Employees/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Pierre Dickson, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince George's County; Dr. Kevin Maxwell, Individually and as superintendent of Prince George's Public Schools; Dr. Alvin Crawley, Individually and as superintendent; Robert J. Gaskin, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George's Public Schools; Dr. Lillian M. Lowery; Ardra Monique O'Neal; Abbey G. Hairston, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2027

Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Judith E. Rivlin, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Washington, D.C.; Mark James Murphy, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Josephat Mua appeals the district court's order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his civil case against several defendants, and also challenges the district court's decision to return to Mua a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. Mua has also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and affirm the district court's order.^* See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cty., Md., No. 8:15-cv-02249-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 2, 2017). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. We discern no reversible error in the district court's refusal to entertain Mua's motion for reconsideration.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law