For reasons set forth with more detail in the court’s discussion of the defamation claim, however, the court finds that plaintiffs argument lacks merit. Since McBride has failed to rebut defendants’ showing that they did not deprive plaintiff of a protected liberty interest, the court must grant summary judgment as to Count I (liberty interest claim). B. Defamation Claim As a threshold matter, a portion of plaintiffs defamation claim is time-barred. To the extent that plaintiffs allegations concern statements or accusations “caused to be made and/or circulated” in the summer and fall of 1991, Virginia’s one year statute of limitations bars him from bringing them in this action, filed on April 30, 1993. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-248; Semida v. Rice, 863 F.2d 1156, 1160 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The alleged defamation upon which plaintiff
recognizing that the supreme court in hayes consistently limited its holding that the mva title provisions applied instead of the ucc to cases involving tort law and liability insurance coverage  recognizing that this court has consistently held that every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional and a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt recognizing that the supreme court has consistently applied an analysis keyed to economic realities  recognizing that  the virginia supreme court has consistently applied the one year statute of limitation  to defamation actions  holding that kentuckys one year statute of limitations period applies to  1983 actions