Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karen MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    
      No. 14-2076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 19, 2015.
    Decided: April 8, 2015.
    Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Spence Cox, Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph Charles Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Karen Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Moore v. Google, Inc., No. 2:13-cv03034-RMG, 2014 WL 4955264 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2014). We deny the pending motion for stay pending appeal and for appointment of counsel as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       We note that Moore's notice of appeal designated not only the district court’s final order but also two pretrial orders of the magistrate judge. Because Moore sought review of the orders in the district court, and the district court addressed the issues Moore raises on appeal in its final order, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review those issues in this appeal. Hoven v. Walgreen Co., 751 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir.2014).