Hannah Chandler v. Forsyth Tech Community College

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 11, 2018
• Docket: 18-1193
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1193

HANNAH CHANDLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FORSYTH TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE; FORSYTH TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES; NANCY RAPP, Individually and in her official capacity as Adjunct Professor at Forsyth Technical Community College; WARREN HODGES, Individually and in his official capacity as Department Chair of Paralegal Technology at Forsyth Technical Community College; JOE MCINTOSH, Individually and in his official capacity as Counselor and Director of the Student Success Center at Forsyth Technical Community College; CARLA CREWS, Individually and in her official capacity as Counselor at Forsyth Technical Community College; DEANA RAY, Dean of Business and Information Technology Department at Forsyth Technical Community College; CONLEY WINEBARGER, Individually and in his official capacity as Vice President of Instructional Services at Forsyth Technical Community College,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cv-00172-WO-JLW)

Submitted: August 28, 2018 Decided: October 11, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Allen Clark, Robin Elizabeth Shea, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Hannah Chandler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Chandler v. Forsyth Tech. Cmty. Coll., 294 F. Supp.

3d 445 (M.D.N.C. 2018). We deny Chandler’s motion to appoint counsel and 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