Y.B. v. Robinson Secondary School, No. 13-1327 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1327 Y.B., a minor, by and through his mother I.F., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBINSON SECONDARY SCHOOL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00124-TSE-TCB) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Y.B., Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Cafferky, Patricia Amberly Minson, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Y.B., appeals the a minor district child, by court s and order through denying his his mother, motion to transfer to another high school and dismissing without prejudice his civil action. Y.B. also appeals the district court s order denying his motion to amend the caption of his case. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. An generally Woods, order dismissing is not an Inc., 415 F.3d a appealable 342, 345 complaint order, (4th see Cir. without prejudice Chao Rivendell v. 2005), unless action cannot be saved by merely amending the complaint. the See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding appellate court may evaluate particular grounds for dismissal to determine whether plaintiff could save action by merely amending complaint). With regard to the district court s denial of Y.B. s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Title IX of the Education Act of 1971, we conclude that this portion of the order is not appealable because Y.B. could amend the complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal under Domino Sugar. Next, because Y.B. does not challenge on appeal the basis for the district court s denial of his motion to transfer, 2 he has forfeited appellate district court s order. district court s denial review Finally, of the of we motion that find to portion of no error amend the the in the caption. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
