Was Bhattacharya deprived of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when the district court and Fourth Circuit resolved disputed material facts in favor of UVA, potentially violating procedural due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Was Bhattacharya deprived of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because the district court and Fourth Circuit Majority resolved disputed issues of material fact in favor of the University of Virginia (“UVA”) in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, as interpreted by the Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)? Was Bhattacharya deprived of his First Amendment Right to free speech because UVA suspended and ultimately expelled him from medical school based on the content of his speech at an extracurricular panel discussion regarding microagegression theory, his efforts to defend himself at a hastily convened disciplinary “hearing” at which the only evidence cited for his suspension consisted of his previous questions and comments about microaggression, his “defensiveness” at the suspension hearing, and his online postings seeking to publicize and obtain legal counsel to challenge his suspension? Was Bhattacharya deprived of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because UVA admittedly failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures and did not afford Bhattacharya notice of and an opportunity to defend the charges against him? Was Bhattacharya deprived of his right to due process because the Fourth Circuit Majority resolved disputed issues of material fact in ways that were never advocated by UVA, that the district court never found, and that were demonstrably incorrect—as Bhattacharya established in his Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc after the alleged justification for his suspension surfaced for the very first time in the Majority’s opinion?