Dora Adkins v. Ritz-Carlton, No. 23-2024 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2024 DORA L. ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge, and William Edward Fitzpatrick, Magistrate Judge. (1:22-cv-00934-CMH-WEF) Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. William Webster Miller, MCGAVIN, BOYCE, BARDOT, THORSEN & KATZ, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s September 25, 2023, order dismissing her proposed complaint and amended complaint, September 7, 2023, order denying her motion for leave to seal, and July 11, 2023, order directing that she obtain a default from the clerk pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) and file a notice setting a hearing. Adkins also appeals the magistrate judge’s September 11, 2023, order striking her notice and letter, August 14, 2023, order denying her motion for default judgment and granting Defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, and August 29, 2023, order denying her motion for reconsideration of the August 14 order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Adkins’ motions to supplement her informal brief and for leave to file an informal reply brief, grant her motion and her amended motion to withdraw her supplemental informal brief, and affirm the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders. Adkins v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00934-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va. July 11, Aug. 14, Aug. 29, Sept. 7, Sept. 11 & Sept. 25, 2023). We deny Adkins’ motions to reverse and remand and 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.