David Arevalo v. Akima, LLC

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2026 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2026

DAVID AREVALO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AKIMA, LLC; FRS LLC; LESLIE LEROY; JARED VENABLE; V2X, INC.; JOHN KALAFICE; SAYIED ALI; JAMISON SULLIVAN, Defendants - Appellees, and ETHICS DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00244-LMB-LRV)

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Arevalo, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander C. Landin, KULLMAN FIRM, PC, New Orleans, Louisiana; Jason Branciforte, Morgan L. Kinney, Meredith Lynn Schramm- USCA4 Appeal: 25-2026 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Strosser, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2026 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: David Arevalo appeals the district court’s orders (a) dismissing Arevalo’s civil complaint alleging various employment discrimination and state-law tort claims; and (b) denying the relief sought by Arevalo in the sur-reply, which the district court received after entry of its dispositive order. * Upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error in any aspect of the court’s dispositive rationale. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Arevalo v. Akima, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00244-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va., July 30, 2025 & July 31, 2025). 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

* The parties have filed multiple motions in this court. First, Arevalo asks that we take judicial notice of various Fourth Circuit opinions, allow him to file an initial amendment to the informal brief, and extend the reply period, and we grant those motions.

Defendant V2X, Inc., moves to strike the late reply, which we deny given the granted filing extension. After Defendants filed their informal responses, Arevalo sought leave to file another supplemental brief, which we deny. Finally, Arevalo moves to amend the caption as related to the spelling of Defendant Ali’s first name, which we deny as unnecessary.