Lawyer v. Verizon Communications, Incorporated ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1996
    JANICE LAWYER; REBECCA THOMAS; MELISSA SPENCER; NAKIA
    PURNELL; VALERIE PARKER; TALISA MOORE; CHERYL MOODY; MABLE
    JONES; ELLA HARDY; JOYCE GODFREY; LANGO FLANAGAN; CHRISTINA
    EASON; CAROL VOTZKE; ELLEN DENSMORE; BEATRICE DABNEY;
    MICHELE CHANEY-WARD; SALIE BARKLEY; MERCI ARMAH; TRACY
    ANDERSON-BAILEY; TERRI ANDERSON; TANZY B. BROWN; CHARMAINE
    SMITH; AMELIA PITTMAN; ELVETER ADAMS; TONI COBBS; TARA
    O'ROURKE; REBECCA ANN DUNN; KEVIN THOMPSON; TAMMY TERRY;
    HELEN MILLER,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; VERIZON MARYLAND,
    INCORPORATED; VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED; VERIZON
    VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VERIZON WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED;
    VERIZON   SERVICES  CORPORATION;   VERIZON  ADVANCED   DATA,
    INCORPORATED; VERIZON AVENUE CORPORATION; VERIZON CORPORATE
    SERVICES CORPORATION,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10-
    cv-01287-RWT)
    Submitted:   May 12, 2011                     Decided:   May 27, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Hermina, George Hermina, HERMINA LAW GROUP, Laurel,
    Maryland, for Appellants.   M. Carter DeLorme, Kye D. Pawlenko,
    JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting
    Defendants’    Fed.   R.    Civ.      P.   12(b)(6)   motion      to   dismiss
    Plaintiffs’ state law and Fair Labor Standards Act, 
    29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219
     (West 1998 & Supp. 2010) claims.              We have reviewed
    the record and find no reversible error.           Accordingly, we affirm
    the district court’s order.            See Lawyer v. Verizon Commc’ns,
    Inc., No. 8:10-cv-01287-RWT (D. Md. July 28, 2010).               We dispense
    with oral argument 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1996

Filed Date: 5/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021