Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kelley v. University of Richmond, 06-1760 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1760 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1760 VIVIAN M. KELLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, School of Continuing Studies, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00203-JRS) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1760 VIVIAN M. KELLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, School of Continuing Studies, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00203-JRS) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vivian M. Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Everett Schill, Jr., Stephanie Ploszay Karn, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vivian M. Kelley appeals the district court’s order granting the University of Richmond’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kelley v. Univ. of Richmond, No. 3:06- cv-00203-JRS (E.D. Va. June 2, 2006). We further deny Kelley’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer