Reinaldo Olavarria v. Wake County Board of Education, No. 21-1718 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1718 REINALDO OLAVARRIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; CATHERINE TRUDELL, in her official capacity; JENNIFER ROTHAAR, in her official capacity; JENNIFER PALMER, in her official capacity; EMILY MAE BISHOP, in her official capacity; JACQULINE CUNNINGHAM, in her official capacity; MARSIE RABII, in her official capacity; HEATHER COOKE, in her official capacity; JERRYEEN DANIELS, in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00034-D) Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reinaldo Olavarria, Appellant Pro Se. Eva Blount DuBuisson, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reinaldo Olavarria appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the various claims raised in Olavarria’s civil complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Olavarria’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 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 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.
