Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lawrence v. Montgomery Cnty Scho, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a case brought by Hans Alexander Lawrence, by his parents Trude and Dale Lawrence, against the Montgomery County Public Schools and several officials. The district court had dismissed the case for failing to state a claim under the civil remedies provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-1902

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a case brought by Hans Alexander Lawrence, by his parents Trude and Dale Lawrence, against the Montgomery County Public Schools and several officials. The district court had dismissed the case for failing to state a claim under the civil remedies provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Lawrence v. Montgomery Cnty Scho, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a case brought by Hans Alexander Lawrence, by his parents Trude and Dale Lawrence, against the Montgomery County Public Schools and several officials. The district court had dismissed the case for failing to state a claim under the civil remedies provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-1902

    HANS ALEXANDER LAWRENCE, by his parents and


    next friends, Trude and Dale Lawrence; TRUDE
    LAWRENCE; DALE LAWRENCE,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PAUL L.
    VANCE, Doctor, officially; MARY HELEN SMITH,
    Doctor, officially; RAYMOND W. BRYANT, Doctor,
    officially,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-96-330-JFM)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1997

    Decided:

    May 29, 1997

    Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dale Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Zvi Greismann, Assistant Attorney
    General, Rockville, Maryland; Phillip Tyson Bennett, REESE &
    CARNEY, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal from the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which
    relief could be granted and dismissing Appellants' action pursuant
    to the civil remedies provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 1415(e)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1996).
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
    find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
    of the district court. Lawrence v. Montgomery County Pub. Schools,
    No. CA-96-330-JFM (D. Md. May 22, 1996). 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

    You might also like