Adrienne McAdory v. Vail Technologie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00886-LMB-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000140553]. [17-1605]

Appeal: 17-1605

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1605

ADRIENNE L. MCADORY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VAIL TECHNOLOGIES,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00886-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrienne L. McAdory, Appellant Pro Se. Brittney Renee McClain, Craig Benson
Young, KUTAK ROCK, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1605

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Adrienne L. McAdory appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Vail Technologies (“Vail”) on McAdory’s pregnancy discrimination claim.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because McAdory’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
alternative holdings that she failed to establish her prima facie case or that Vail’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the subcontract was a pretext for
discrimination, McAdory has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Brown
v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d
423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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