In the united states district court for the - Virginia Lawyers Weekly
Case 3:10-cv-00111-REP Document 29 Filed 11/03/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division __________________________________________ ) THERESA B. CLARK ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL NO. 3:10cv111-REP ) PAUL NAPPER, PSY.D., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) and the Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition thereto (Docket No. 24). 1 For the reasons set forth herein, it is the Court’s recommendation that the Defendant’s motion to strike be DENIED and that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED. I. FACTS The Court has reviewed each party’s statement of undisputed facts, including the extensive supporting documentation filed by each party. Resolving all genuine disputes of material fact in favor of the Plaintiff, as required, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and eliminating those factual assertions that are immaterial, the Court has concluded that the following narrative represents the undisputed material facts for purposes of 1At oral argument, the Defendant withdrew the motion to strike. The Court therefore recommends that it be denied as moot.