Sandra Harmon v. Cumberland County Board of Education, No. 16-1543 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1543 SANDRA HARMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a/k/a Cumberland County School District North Carolina; MARIE PIERCE-FORD, individually and in her capacity as Principal of Luther Nick Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School; LARISSA PERKINS, in her capacity as Asst. Principal of Luther Nick Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School (NOMINAL); STAFFORD DANIELS, in her capacity as Asst. Principal of Luther Nick Jeralds’, a Cumberland Co. Board of Ed. School (NOMINAL); DR. JAMES MCLAUCHLIN, Chair of Cumberland County Board of Education, School Board Members; DR. FRANK TILL, Superintendant Cumberland County Board of Education Schools; JOSEPH LOCKLEAR, Deceased, in his former capacity as Associate Superintendent of Cumberland County Schools (NOMINAL), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00485-BR) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. October 14, 2016 Sandra Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. James Scott Lewis, Conor Patrick Regan, HEDRICK, GARDNER, KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sandra Harmon appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and also alleging equal protection and due process violations. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, no reversible error. we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harmon v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:15-cv-00485-BR (E.D.N.C. Harmon’s to motion May expedite 5, 2016). ruling. We We deny dispense as moot 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.
