Theodore Justice v. Timothy Farley, No. 14-1077 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1077 THEODORE JUSTICE, for Son, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DR. TIMOTHY FARLEY, Granville County School Superintendent; MARY WATSON, Director Exceptional Children; AUGUSTUS B. ELKINS, Administrative Law Judge; HONORABLE JULIAN MANN, III, Administrative Law Judge; AMY MILLER, Program Director Exceptional Children; MICHAEL ALLEN, Director Exceptional Children; KATHY TWISDALE, Principal Stovall Shaw Elementary; ROBYNN WILLIAMS, Special Education Teacher; JAMES E. CROSS, JR., Attorney Granville County Schools; DALE W. HENSLEY, Attorney Granville County Schools; KATE NEALE, Consultant for Dispute Resolution Department of Public Instruction Exceptional Children Division; JULIE RICHARDS, Clerk of Court, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00343-D) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 29, 2014 Theodore Justice, Appellant Pro Se. John Graham Corriher, Kenneth Alexander Soo, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Laura Ellen Crumpler, Susannah Porter Holloway, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Tiffany Y. Lucas, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Theodore Justice appeals the district court s order dismissing his complaint raising claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง Section 504 of the 1983, 1985(2) (2012) and the United States Constitution. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, no reversible error. reasons stated by the district court. in forma pauperis. We affirm for the Justice v. Farley, No. 5:13-cv-00343-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2014). proceed we dispense We grant leave to 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.