With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (citations omitted). The Defendants argue that Davis had no property interest in employment at UVI beyond September 30, 2005. In support of that argument, the Defendants rely primarily on Davis’s deposition testimony. That testimony reflects that Davis understood the end date of her latest employment contract with UVI to be September 30, 2005. That testimony further reflects that Davis is owed no compensation in any form from UVI after September 30, 2005. That testimony is unrebutted. Based on Davis’s deposition testimony, the Court finds that the Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine question of material fact with respect to whether Davis had a property interest in her continued employment at UVI. See, e.g., Roth, 408 U.S. at 578 (<HOLDING>); Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 322 (2d

A: holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges
B: holding that an assistant professor hired for a fixed term of one academic year had no property interest in his job because the terms of his employment allowed that his contract not be renewed
C: holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated
D: holding that contract of employment providing that professor could be terminated only for cause constituted property right protected by fourteenth amendment
B.