McCray v. Ardelle Associates Inc., et al., No. 4:2014cv00158 - Document 63 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 48 and 54 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar on 5/25/2018. (jrin)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McCray v. Ardelle Associates Inc., et al. Doc. 63 FILED 2 5 20! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION SHERYL T. McCRAY, Plaintiff, V. CIVIL NO. 4:14cvl58 INFUSED SOLUTIONS, LLC and JAMIE BAKER, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court upon the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Infused Solutions, LLC ("Infused"), and Jamie Baker (collectively, the "Defendants"). ECF Nos. 48, 54 (the "Motions"). At the hearing in this matter, the Court granted Defendants' Motions. This Memorandum Opinion further explains the Court's reasoning. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY A. Procedural History Plaintiff initially sued seven defendants. Only two remain. On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff brought an action in federal court against Sergeant First Class Jonah Jancewicz ("SFC Jancewicz"), Ardelle Associates, Inc. ("Ardelle"), Infused Solutions, LLC ("Infused"), Jamie Baker, the United States Army Recruiting Command, a John Doe, and a Jane Doe, in connection with Plaintiffs reprimand and termination. Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 1. Ardelle filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 3, which the Court granted without prejudice, Case No. 4:13cv60, ECF No. 27. After the Court dismissed Ardelle, the United States Attorney General certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2679(d)(2), that Jancewicz 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
