785 Fed.Appx. 78 (3rd Cir. 2019), 18-3701, Hopkins v. Trenton Board of Education
|Citation:||785 Fed.Appx. 78|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||Lyman S. HOPKINS, Appellant v. TRENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION; Madeline Roman, Official and Individual Cap.; Michael Pettola, Official and Individual Cap.; Sandra Iturbides, Official and Individual Cap.|
|Attorney:||Lyman S. Hopkins, Pro Se Cherie L. Adams, Esq., Adams Gutierrez & Lattiboudere, Newark, NJ, for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||September 10, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted on Appellees Motion for Summary Action July 11, 2019
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-03232), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Lyman S. Hopkins, Pro Se
Cherie L. Adams, Esq., Adams Gutierrez & Lattiboudere, Newark, NJ, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Lyman Hopkins, proceeding pro se, appeals orders of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including an order dismissing his second amended complaint and denying his motion to amend, and orders denying his motions for reconsideration and relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. We will grant Appellees motion for summary action and affirm the denial of Rule 60 relief.
Hopkins filed an employment discrimination complaint against the Trenton Board of Education and individual defendants after he was not hired for a position as a Spanish teacher. The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to allege facts supporting a discrimination claim and comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Hopkins moved to reopen his case and submitted another complaint. The defendants opposed the motion. The District Court denied the motion
to reopen and allowed Hopkins to file an amended complaint.
Hopkins filed an amended complaint and the District Court reopened the case. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. At a hearing, Hopkins stated...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP