The opinion
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karen Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her
civil complaint. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. 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. 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
∗
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