McCray v. Ardelle Associates Inc., et al.

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 48 and 54 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar on 5/25/2018. (jrin)

FILED

2 5 20!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK. VA

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION

SHERYL T. McCRAY,
Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL NO. 4:14cvl58

INFUSED SOLUTIONS, LLC
and JAMIE BAKER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by
Infused Solutions, LLC ("Infused"), and Jamie Baker (collectively, the "Defendants"). ECF Nos.
48, 54 (the "Motions"). At the hearing in this matter, the Court granted Defendants' Motions.
This Memorandum Opinion further explains the Court's reasoning.
I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
A.

Procedural History

Plaintiff initially sued seven defendants. Only two remain. On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff
brought an action in federal court against Sergeant First Class Jonah Jancewicz ("SFC
Jancewicz"), Ardelle Associates, Inc. ("Ardelle"), Infused Solutions, LLC ("Infused"), Jamie

Baker, the United States Army Recruiting Command, a John Doe, and a Jane Doe, in connection
with Plaintiffs reprimand and termination. Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 1. Ardelle filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 3, which the Court

granted without prejudice, Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 27. After the Court dismissed Ardelle,

the United States Attorney General certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2), that Jancewicz

1