William Williamson v. School Board of the City of Chesapeake

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1325 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1325 WILLIAM EDWARD WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; ANGELA B. SWYGERT, individual capacity; THOMAS LEE MERCER, SR., individual capacity; SAMUEL L. BOONE, JR., individual capacity; AMANDA GRACE DEAN, individual capacity; MICHAEL K. LAMONEA, individual capacity; JOHN M. MCCORMICK, individual capacity; NORMAN POOL, individual capacity; KIMBERLY A. SCOTT, individual capacity; BRITTANY NICOLE WALKER, individual capacity; MICHAEL ROSS BAILEY, individual capacity; BRIAN T. AUSTIN, individual capacity; SUZAN L. MCDERMOTT, individual capacity; LAURIE EDGAR, individual capacity; RAYMOND COLLINS, individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:23-cv-00224-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025 Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1325 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 William Edward Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Crawford Harding, KIERNAN TREBACH LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Anne Catherine Lahren, Richard Hoyt Matthews, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1325 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: William Edward Williamson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Williamson’s complaint alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Williamson v. Sch. Bd. Of the City of Chesapeake, No. 2:23-cv-00224-RAJ- LRL (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2025). 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