Debra Roach v. Robert Gates, No. 12-1752 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1752 DEBRA J. ROACH, a/k/a Debra Jarama Roach, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DR. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense, Defendant Appellee, and DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00136-DCN; 2:07-cv-01574-DCN) Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra J. Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Debra Roach appeals from the district court s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and determining that Roach s remaining claims in her employment-related action were both unexhausted and meritless. We have reviewed the record in this case, as well as Roach s brief on appeal, and we find no reversible error in the district court s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning district of the court. See Roach v. Gates, 2:07-cv-00136-DCN; 2:07-cv-01574-DCN (D.S.C. May 30, 2012). Nos. In addition, we note that, on appeal, Roach has not challenged the district court s substantive ruling on the merits of her causes of action. * decision. As such, she has waived any challenge to this See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ( The [c]ourt will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief. ); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (issues not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned). Roach s motion for transcripts. We deny We dispense with oral argument * Roach did challenge the district court s procedural consideration of the merits, averring that the court erred by examining the merits prior to a hearing and other proceedings. We reject this claim of error. 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
