Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02076/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2076

KAREN MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOOGLE, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District

Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG)

Submitted: March 19, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2076 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/08/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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).

Appeal: 14-2076 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/08/2015 Pg: 2 of 2