Jenny Laing v. Capital One, National Association ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1939 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1939
JENNY LAING,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a/k/a Capital One, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
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)
Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenny Laing, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Eric Humber, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1939 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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
2