Whether a federal district court violates a party's due process rights by striking a summary judgment opposition without providing an opportunity to respond to a motion to strike, thereby depriving the party of a meaningful opportunity to defend against a dispositive motion

No question identified. : mistakenly believed that the 90-day period to file the petition for a writ of certiorari began from the date of the issuance of the mandate—June 17, 2025—rather than from the denial of her petition for rehearing en banc on June 9, 2025, as governed by Supreme Court Rule 13.3. Petitioner also incorrectly assumed that an application for extension of time could be filed within 10 days of the expiration of what was believed to be the deadline, rather than in advance of the actual due date. Background Kiya Cunningham was employed with Defendant Wells Fargo from 2006 to 2020, after many years of suffering various forms of discrimination and retaliation by Defendants without action of any kind taken to correct the hostile work environment she faced, Cunningham filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in 2019 followed by a Complaint with the U.S. District Court in Western District of North Carolina on October 11, 2019, Shortly thereafter, Cunningham was placed on administrative leave, and ultimately terminated on October 8, 2020. After years of litigation Cunningham’s response to summary judgement was struck by the lower court without giving her a chance to respond to the Defendant’s Motion to Strike. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court issued a minimum worded affirmance that indicated petitioner’s argument in her informal brief “does not present developed argument challenging the bases undergirding the district court’s rulings,” without affording leeway for Cunningham’s pro se status or explaining how to cure the defect which denied Cuningham the right to a meaningful appellate review. Cunningham's petition for rehearing en banc was similarly denied without explanation, leaving her without any substantive judicial review of the statutory interpretation. Identification of Judgment Sought to be Reviewed The judgment sought to be reviewed was entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 9, 2025, in Case No. 23-1977 and No. 23-1978. A copy of Exhibit A for the Fourth Circuit Judgment is attached. Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on May 21, 2025, the denial of such review was entered on June 9, 2025 attached as Exhibit B and the formal mandate issued on June 17, 2025 attached as Exhibit C. Basis for Jurisdiction in this Court This case presents an important constitutional and procedural question at the intersection of the Due Process Clause and the rules governing summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner’s opposition to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment was struck from the record by the district court pursuant to a motion to strike filed by the respondent. Critically, the court struck petitioner’s response without providing petitioner an opportunity to respond to the motion to strike. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The petition for a writ of certiorari will present three questions: 1. Whether a federal district court violates a party’s due process rights under the Fifth (or Fourteenth) Amendment by striking that party’s opposition to summary judgment without affording an opportunity to respond to a motion to strike, when the opposition constitutes the party’s only substantive defense to a dispositive motion. 2. Whether a district court’s failure to follow the procedures established in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56—by disposing of a summary judgment response without considering its content or allowing the essential procedural safeguards that govern Rule 56 motion constitutes reversible error when it deprives a party of the opportunity to oppose summary judgment. 3. Whether the Circuit Split and Jurisprudential Uncertainty Warrant Review by this Court. There is no clear, uniform standard across federal courts on whether a motion to strike a summary judgement opposition may be granted without allowing a response. Some circuits discourage motions to strike entirely