Background
David Arevalo filed a civil complaint against Akima, LLC, and several other corporate and individual defendants, asserting various employment-discrimination and state-law tort claims. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the complaint.
After the district court entered its dispositive order, it received a sur-reply from Arevalo. The court denied the relief requested in that filing. Arevalo, proceeding pro se, appealed both orders to the Fourth Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. After reviewing the record, the panel concluded that there was no reversible error in any aspect of the district court’s dispositive rationale.
The court also resolved several appellate motions. It granted Arevalo’s motions for judicial notice of Fourth Circuit opinions, permission to amend his informal brief initially, and an extension of the reply period. It denied V2X, Inc.’s motion to strike Arevalo’s late reply, denied Arevalo’s request to submit another supplemental brief, and denied as unnecessary his motion to amend the caption concerning the spelling of defendant Ali’s first name.
The panel dispensed with oral argument because the record adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Arevalo’s employment-discrimination and state-law tort claims.
- The panel also upheld the denial of relief requested in a sur-reply received after the district court had entered its dispositive order.
- The unpublished per curiam opinion found no reversible error but did not provide a detailed independent analysis of the district court’s reasoning.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves intact the district court’s dismissal and its treatment of Arevalo’s post-decision sur-reply. Because the Fourth Circuit affirmed by reference to the district court’s rationale, the district court’s July 30 and July 31, 2025 orders contain the substantive reasoning underlying the result.
The opinion is unpublished and expressly states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.