Deepak Mehra v. United States Department of Labor; West Virginia University

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2280
DEEPAK MEHRA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00062-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: August 19, 2025 Decided: September 4, 2025
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deepak Mehra, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah J. Starrett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Wendy G. Adkins, JACKSON KELLY PLLC,
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deepak Mehra appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to the
United States Department of Labor and affirming the Administrative Review Board’s
December 21, 2021, decision, which summarily affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s
June 29, 2021, order denying Mehra’s complaint for damages related to his employment at
West Virginia University under an H-1B nonimmigrant visa. Having reviewed de novo
the administrative record, and after considering the parties’ submissions on appeal, we
conclude that the Administrative Review Board’s decision is neither arbitrary nor
capricious and is supported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E);
Greater Mo. Med. Pro-Care Providers, Inc. v. Perez, 812 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th Cir.
2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.* Mehra v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
No. 3:22-cv-00062-GMG-RWT (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 7, 2023). 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
* In addition to rejecting Mehra’s contentions of error related to the administrative
proceedings, we also reject Mehra’s arguments on appeal that he was entitled to extra-
record discovery and that the district judge should have recused herself. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a), (b); Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973).

-- 2 of 2 --