Opinion
23-1939
08-27-2024
JENNY LAING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a/k/a Capital One, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
Jenny Laing, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Eric Humber, Ogletree Deakins nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 13, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01403-LMB-IDD)
Jenny Laing, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher Eric Humber, Ogletree Deakins nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before Niemeyer and Rushing, Circuit Judges, and Floyd, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Jenny Laing appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's uncontested motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. In the summary judgment context, the nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the complaint. Rather, the response to the summary judgment motion must, with affidavits or other verified evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the nonmoving party fails to so respond, the facts as set forth by the movant may be considered uncontroverted. Summary judgment may be entered in favor of the movant if those uncontroverted facts show that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 1993).
We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Laing failed to respond to the summary judgment motion and the uncontested facts establish Defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Laing v. Capital One Nat'l Ass'n, No. 1:22-cv-01403-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 4 &entered Aug. 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