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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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,

(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.,

(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