USCA4 Appeal: 22-1288 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1288

TRACEY DIANE COLQUITT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, d/b/a St. Francis Nursing Center; DOMINQUE HAWKINS; TAMIKA GREENE; BRIELLE ROBERSON; ST. FRANCIS NURSING CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

IRVIN LAND,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00053-RCY-RJK)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1288 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

Tracey Diane Colquitt, Appellant Pro Se. Laura May Hooe, Kathleen Mary McCauley, MORAN, REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1288 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Diane Colquitt appeals the district court’s order dismissing her second

amended complaint alleging retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967,

to 634, the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990,

to 12213 (“ADA”), and Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3; and failure

to accommodate her disability, in violation of the ADA. Confining our review to the issues

raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules,

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Colquitt’s motion for appointment of

counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. Colquitt v. Bon Secours Mercy Health,

No. 4:21-cv-00053-RCY-RJK (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2022). 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

3