Adrienne McAdory v. Vail Technologies, No. 17-1605 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1605 ADRIENNE L. MCADORY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.