Donald Jensen v. Western Carolina University, No. 13-1110 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1110 DONALD JENSEN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT MCMAHAN, in his individual and official capacities; MARY ANN LOCHNER, in her individual and official capacities; JAMES ZHANG, in his individual and official capacities; EARNEST HUDSON, JR., in his individual and official capacities, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11 cv 00033 MR DLH) Submitted: August 21, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and August 28, 2013 THACKER, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. Luke Largess, TIN, FUTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Katherine A. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Donald Jensen appeals a district court order granting summary judgment against him in his suit primarily alleging that he was unlawfully retaliated against for speech protected by the First Amendment and the North Carolina Whistleblower Act, see N.C.G.S. § 126-84, et seq., and that he was temporarily barred from campus in violation of his rights to due process under the United States Constitution. We have reviewed the record and we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jensen v. Western Carolina Univ., 2012 WL 6728360 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2012). 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 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.