# Karen Moore v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 8, 2015 · 599 F. App'x 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2792144

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 8, 2015
- **Citations:** 599 F. App'x 108
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Floyd, Thacker
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2792144

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2792144. Public record. Not legal advice.