Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01143/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Comcast Corporation
Appellee
Darlene J. Davis
Appellant
Joe Minor
Appellee
Dan Simson
Appellee
Dana Thomas

Rico Wade

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1143

DARLENE J. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMCAST CORPORATION, INC.; JOE MINOR; DAN SIMSON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DANA THOMAS; RICO WADE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01513-GBL-IDD)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: August 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darlene J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy McCormack, Michelle 

Marie McGeogh, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, 

Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-1143 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1143 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Darlene J. Davis appeals various pretrial orders and the 

district court’s final order denying relief on her complaint 

filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 206(d) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Davis v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:13-cv01513-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2015). Davis has filed a 

motion for a hearing in this Court, stating that she did not 

receive one of Comcast’s attachments to its response. Because 

Comcast has now filed the requested attachment, we deny Davis’ 

motion. 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

Appeal: 15-1143 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3