Court Opinion

ID: 9929727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:42.574617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:19.123971
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2284      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2284

        SYLVIA MOORE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00051-RDA-IDD)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sylvia Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Denyse Sabagh, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Washington,
        D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2284      Doc: 18        Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Sylvia Moore appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary

        injunction and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her civil complaint

        in which Moore alleged, among other things, that Defendant improperly calculated her

        pension benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Moore v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00051-

        RDA-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 15, 2022 & entered Nov. 16, 2022). 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

                                                    2