Ana M. Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents, No. 09-11365 (11th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ____________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-11365 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 8, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00186-CV-1 ANA M. ABREU-VELEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GA, MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA, DENNIS MARCUS, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. _____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _____________________ (July 8, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The district court granted appellees summary judgment on appellant s claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that (1) her employment was terminated at the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) in retaliation for her exercise of speech specifically, for voicing concerns about appellee Marcus s clinical trials and (2) MCG refused to employ her for any number of the 130 jobs she applied for, and was qualified, in retaliation for the complaints she had made following her termination. After granting appellees summary judgment, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over appellant s whistleblower claim under state law and accordingly dismissed it without prejudice. Appellant now appeals, contending that the district court erred in several respects in granting summary judgment. She also contends that the court should have recused. We agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in its February 12, 2009 order granting summary judgment, that appellant s § 1983 claims of retaliation are meritless. As for appellant s recusal argument, we note that appellant did not move the district court to recuse while the case was pending before the court. She therefore asks, in effect, that we conclude that the court s refusal to recuse sua sponte amounted to plain error. We decline her request. 2 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
