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)
20-1596•Christine M. Owen v. Liberty University
20-1596Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 13, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1596
CHRISTINE M. OWEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY; NICOLE M. DILELLA, both individually and in her
official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty/professor; MARY DEACON,
both individually and in her official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty and
CACREP liaison; DENISE DANIEL, both individually and in her official capacity
as Liberty University CES faculty/professor; ELIAS MOITINHO, both individually
and in his official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty; ERIC CAMDEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:19-cv-00007-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: December 8, 2021 Decided: January 13, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christine M. Owen, Appellant Pro Se. Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, Summer Speight,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Christine M. Owen appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion
to dismiss Owen’s civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); granting Defendants’
motion to strike Owen’s surreply; and dismissing as moot all outstanding motions,
including Owen’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Owen v. Liberty
Univ., No. 6:19-cv-00007-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2020). 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.