Faline Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

── Faline Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-2043 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2043 FALINE ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv-00384-RBS-RJK) Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Faline Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Kerk Reyes, Norfolk, Virginia, Randy Carl Sparks, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2043 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Faline Arnold appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant summary judgment on Arnold’s claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654, and denying Arnold’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. * We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the issues Arnold raises in her informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Having found no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s orders. Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00384-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2025; Aug. 28, 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 * Arnold has filed several motions in this court. We grant Arnold’s motions to dispense with appendix (ECF No. 9) and to correct (ECF Nos. 27-28). We deny the motions for transcript at government expense (ECF No. 7), to file a formal brief (ECF No. 8), and for sanctions (ECF No. 26). 2