Court Opinion

ID: 9556858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 21:00:41.160102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:56.066615
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521      Doc: 27         Filed: 08/17/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1521

        JOSEPH SALMOIRAGHI,

                             Plaintiff – Appellant,

                      v.

        VERITISS, LLC,

                             Defendant – Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01405-MSN-TCB)

        Submitted: October 20, 2022                                       Decided: August 17, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Monique Antonia Miles, Danielle G. Pimentel, OLD TOWNE
        ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Courtney R. Abbott, GORDON
        REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP. Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521       Doc: 27         Filed: 08/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Plaintiff Joseph Salmoiraghi — a former employee of defendant Veritiss, LLC

        (“Veritiss”), a business entity that provides intelligence analysis and related services to the

        United States government — initiated this civil action in the Eastern District of Virginia in

        November 2019, pursuing, inter alia, a discrimination claim and a retaliation claim, each

        alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).* On appeal,

        Salmoiraghi challenges the district court’s award of summary judgment to Veritiss. See

        Salmoiraghi v. Veritiss, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01405 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2022), ECF No. 85.

               We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis,

        54 F.4th 805, 818 (4th Cir. 2022). Having carefully assessed the record — including the

        appellate submissions of the parties and the applicable legal principles governing

        Salmoiraghi’s ADA claims — we are satisfied that the district court did not err in awarding

        summary judgment to Veritiss. And we are further satisfied to affirm on the thorough and

        well-reasoned opinion of the district court, as filed on April 6, 2022. We dispense with

        oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                          AFFIRMED

               *
                 By his complaint, Salmoiraghi also claimed that Veritiss created and maintained a
        hostile work environment, in contravention of the ADA. The district court dismissed that
        claim in November 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
        Salmoiraghi does not challenge that ruling, and we need not address it here.

                                                      2