Munive v. Fairfax County School Board et al, No. 1:2018cv01566 - Document 25 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 6/5/19. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by chambers.(klau, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Munive v. Fairfax County School Board et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division KATHLEEN MUNIVE, Plaintiff, l:18-cv-1566(LMB/IDD) V. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al.. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, to which plaintiff has filed an Opposition.' For the reasons stated in open court,^ and as further developed in this Memorandum Opinion, defendants' Motion has been granted, and this civil action has been dismissed. 1. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kathleen Munive ("plaintiff or "Munive")alleges in a one-count Complaint that defendants Fairfax County School Board ("FCSB"), Frances Ivey ("Ivey"), Patricia Granada ("Granada"), Sandra Edwards("Edwards"), Kevil Sills ("Sills"), R. Chase Ramey("Ramey"), and Steven Lockard ("Lockard")(collectively,"defendants") violated 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 by retaliating 'Plaintiff was afforded extra time to file her Opposition because she lists herself as pro se. but she has been assisted in this and prior litigation by a New York attorney who is not admitted to practice in this Court and does not appear to be licensed to practice in Virginia. Accordingly, although pleadings filed by a pro se party must be "liberally construed" and not held to the same standards as those filed by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94(2007)(intemal quotation marks and citations omitted), this Complaint will not receive such solicitude because it was drafted with the assistance of counsel. ^ Although the original hearing date for this Motion was Friday, April 12,2019, it was continued two weeks after plaintiff asked defendants to notice an amended hearing date. Despite the continuance, plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. Dkt. No. 14. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
