Todd Parkin v. Tony Baldwin, No. 22-2303 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2303 TODD LYNN PARKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. TONY BALDWIN, Superintendent of the Buncombe County School District (BCS); DAVID THOMPSON, BCS Director of Student Services and 504 Coordinator; CONNIE DENNING, IEP team member, BCS Assistant EC (Exceptional Children’s) Director; KAREN BARNHILL, IEP team member, BCS Principal of Enka Middle School, formerly Principal of Cane Creek Middle School (CCMS); DIANE MCENTIRE, IEP team member, BCS Assistant Principal of Enka Middle School, formerly Assistant Principal of CCMS; GINA SCHWEITZER, IEP team member, II Intensive Intervention (special education) teacher for BCS at CCMS; MELANIE RAMSEY, IEP team member, Director and Principal of the Progressive Education Program (PEP); BUNCOMBE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00261-MR-DCK) Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023 Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Lynn Parkin, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Frances Leonard, CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Todd Lynn Parkin appeals the district court’s order adopting in part a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissing Parkin’s complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Parkin’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 judgment. 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 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.
