Karen Moore v. Google, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal and for appointment of counselt as moot [999471231-2]. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-03034-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999561120]. Mailed to: Karen Moore. [14-2076]

Appeal: 14-2076

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2076

KAREN MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG)

Submitted:

March 19, 2015

Decided:

April 8, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
David Spence Cox, BARNWELL
WHALEY PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina;
Joseph
Charles
Gratz,
DURIE
TANGRI
LLP,
San
Francisco,
California, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2076

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Karen Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her
complaint. ∗

civil

We

reversible error.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Moore v. Google, Inc., No. 2:13–cv-

03034–RMG, 2014 WL 4955264 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2014).

We deny the

pending motion for stay pending appeal and for appointment of
counsel as moot.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

Court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗

We note that Moore’s notice of appeal designated not only
the district court’s final order but also two pretrial orders of
the magistrate judge. Because Moore sought review of the orders
in the district court, and the district court addressed the
issues Moore raises on appeal in its final order, we conclude
that we have jurisdiction to review those issues in this appeal.
Hoven v. Walgreen Co., 751 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 2014).

2