Scribd
Upload
27 views3 pages

Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Frances K. Ingram against Morgan State University and 27 other schools. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ingram's claims for lack of standing against most defendants and failure to state a valid claim against the remaining defendants. The court found that Ingram did not allege she applied for and was qualified for jobs at the schools, or that they continued seeking similar applicants after rejecting her. Her other claims of violations of Title VI, Section 1981, and equal protection also failed for legal reasons such as the schools not receiving necessary federal funding or their hiring decisions not constituting state action.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
27 views3 pages

Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Frances K. Ingram against Morgan State University and 27 other schools. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ingram's claims for lack of standing against most defendants and failure to state a valid claim against the remaining defendants. The court found that Ingram did not allege she applied for and was qualified for jobs at the schools, or that they continued seeking similar applicants after rejecting her. Her other claims of violations of Title VI, Section 1981, and equal protection also failed for legal reasons such as the schools not receiving necessary federal funding or their hiring decisions not constituting state action.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FRANCES K. INGRAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; THE
BOYS' LATIN SCHOOL OF MARYLAND,
INCORPORATED; BRYN MAWR SCHOOL;
CALVERT SCHOOL; CAPITOL HILL DAY
SCHOOL, INCORPORATED; GARRISON
FOREST SCHOOL, INCORPORATED;
GLENELG COUNTY SCHOOL; GREEN
ACRES SCHOOL; GILMAN SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; HOLTEN ARMS
SCHOOL; HOLY TRINITY EPISCOPAL
DAY SCHOOL; KEY SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; LANDON SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; MCDONOUGH SCHOOL;
No. 95-2314
NORWOOD SCHOOL INCORPORATED;
PARK SCHOOL OF BALTIMORE; QUEEN
ANNE SCHOOL; ROLAND PARK
COUNTY SCHOOL, INCORPORATED;
SANDY SPRING FRIENDS SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; SHERIDAN SCHOOL;
SIDWELL FRIENDS SCHOOL; ST.
ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED; ST. PAUL'S
SCHOOL FOR GIRLS; NATIONAL
CATHEDRAL; ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT MARYLAND SCHOOLS,
INCORPORATED; BALTIMORE
EDUCATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP TRUST,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court


for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-267-JFM)
Submitted: November 14, 1995
Decided: January 16, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINSON, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Frances K. Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mark Jason Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas Dennehy Washburne, Sr., OBER, KALER,
GRIMES & SHRIVER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her
claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court correctly determined that the Appellant lacked standing to assert a claim
2

against twenty-five of the twenty-eight Defendants. As to the other


three Defendants, we find that Appellant has failed to make the requisite prima facie case for any of her claims. Her Title VII and 42
U.S.C.A. 1981 (West 1994) claims fail to meet this standard
because Appellant has not alleged that she applied and was qualified
for a particular job or that the Defendants continued to seek applicants
of her qualifications after her rejection. 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-2 (West
1994); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802
(1973). Her Title VI claim fails because Appellant has not alleged that
the Defendants receive federal financial assistance for the primary
purpose of employment, or that she was the intended beneficiary of
any such assistance. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-3 (1988); Soberal-Perez v.
Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 38 (2d Cir. 1983). Finally, her equal protection
claim fails because the hiring decisions of private institutions do not
constitute state action. See Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S.
244, 247 (1963). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order.
In light of this disposition, Appellees' motion to strike is denied as
moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.*
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*We find that the failure to give Appellant proper notice under
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was, at most, harmless error because the error did not affect Appellant's substantial rights.
See United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 211 (4th Cir. 1988). For the
same reason, the failure to rule on Appellant's motion for default judgment was harmless error.
3

You might also like