Watson v. Shenandoah University
This text of 699 F. App'x 262 (Watson v. Shenandoah University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Rriesta 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, 2017 WL 1181029 (WD. 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
699 F. App'x 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-shenandoah-university-ca4-2017.