Court Opinion

ID: 9929750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:05.706237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:37:10.512816
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1921

        CHRISTINA BROWN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        AMAZON HEADQUARTERS, LLC, a/k/a Amazon.com, Inc.; AMAZON
        LOGISTICS, INC.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00189-MSN-WEF)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christina Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Paul Berg, Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER
        MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921     Doc: 13         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Christina Brown appeals the district court’s order (a) denying Brown’s motions to

        remand and for leave to amend her complaint; and (b) granting Defendants’ motion to

        dismiss Brown’s wrongful death action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record

        and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Brown

        v. Amazon Headquarters, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00189-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2023).

        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