The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-1686•Stuart P. Adler, M.d. v. Virginia Commonwealth University
17-1686Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 19, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1686
STUART P. ADLER, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY; MICHAEL RAO, PH.D., in his
official capacity; JEROME STRAUSS, III, M.D. in his official and individual
capacity; ELIZABETH RIPLEY, M.D. in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00239-JAG)
Submitted: December 14, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2018
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tim Schulte, Blackwell N. Shelly, Jr., Richmond, Virginia; Timothy E. Cupp, SHELLEY
CUPP SCHULTE, PC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Kevin D. Holden, Crystal
L. Tyler, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart P. Adler, M.D., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants
summary judgment on his: (1) age discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant
to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West
2008 & Supp. 2017); (2) claims alleging Defendants violated his due process rights under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) defamation claims. We have reviewed the
record and considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Adler v. Va. Commonwealth
Univ., No. 3:16-cv-00239-JAG (E.D. Va. May 1, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.