Ogbaegbe v. Hampton University ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2026
CHARLES OGBAEGBE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HAMPTON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-25-4)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 19, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Austin Goman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Laura G. Fox,
LAURA G. FOX, PLLC, Warrenton, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles I. Ogbaegbe appeals the magistrate judge’s order
granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.* We review
de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and view
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact
exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); United States Dep’t of Labor v.
N.C. Growers Ass’n, 377 F.3d 345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary
judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
To the extent Ogbaegbe alleges educational malpractice,
that is not a cognizable cause of action in Virginia. See
Sellers v. School Bd. of the City of Manassas, 960 F. Supp. 1006,
1012 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d, 141 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 1998).
Furthermore, no genuine issue of material fact exists to inhibit
summary judgment on the breach of contract allegation. Finally,
Ogbaegbe’s statutory claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, as neither he nor his agent, attorney or
representative “commenced such action or . . . filed by registered
*
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).
- 2 -
mail a written statement of the nature of the claim with the
potential defendant or defendants within 180 days of the occurrence
of the alleged violation.” Va. Code Ann. § 51.6-45(B) (Michie
2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the magistrate judge.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -