Kriesta L. Watson v. Shenandoah University


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000101249-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00022-EKD-JCH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000180884]. Mailed to: Catherine Jackson Huff. [17-1588]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1588 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/26/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1588 KRIESTA L. WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY; BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendants - Appellees, and BRYON GRIGSBY; MARIE LANDES; CALVIN ALLEN; KAREN ABRAHAM; STEVEN HUMPRIES; TRACEY FITZSIMMONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00022-EKD-JCH) Submitted: September 27, 2017 Before KING, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: October 26, 2017 Appeal: 17-1588 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/26/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Kriesta L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Jackson Huff, Paul Granger Klockenbrink, Monica Taylor Monday, GENTRY LOCKE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-1588 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/26/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Kriesta L. Watson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Watson v. Shenandoah Univ., No. 5:14-cv-00022-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2017). 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?