Venida Marshall v. Board of Education of PG County, No. 13-1978 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1978 VENIDA MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01232-PJM) Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 19, 2014 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Venida Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Appellee. Robert Judah Baror, Linda Greenbelt, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Venida granting Marshall summary appeals judgment to the the employment discrimination action. and find no reversible error. district Defendant court s in order Marshall s We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing on July 2, 2013. Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George s Cnty., No. 8:11-cv-01232-PJM (D. Md. filed July 3, 2013; entered July 5, 2013). We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED In addition to challenging the district court s rejection of her claims on the merits, Marshall also asserts that the district court s order should be vacated because her counsel was ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-86 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2856 (2013). 2

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.