Court Opinion

ID: 9375109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:16.569393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.157786
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2297      Doc: 18          Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2297

        DORA L. ADKINS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01130-PTG-WEF)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2297      Doc: 18          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge, denying her requests for leave to file an emergency complaint and for

        leave to proceed on that complaint in forma pauperis, and dismissing her case. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Adkins’ motion

        to amend her informal brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Adkins v.

        Fitness Int’l, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01130-PTG-WEF (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2022). We deny

        Adkins’ motions to reverse and remand, to vacate and remand, to replace her motion to

        vacate and remand, and to amend her motion to vacate and remand. 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