Adonica Blackston v. Starbucks Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-2297
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2297 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2297

ADONICA BLACKSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:25-cv-01550-MSN-WBP)

Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adonica Blackston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2297 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Adonica Blackston appeals the district court’s order dismissing, on 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) review, Blackston’s complaint alleging claims for (1) retaliation and race and

sex discrimination, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17; (2) age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; (3) wrongful discharge in violation of Virginia

public policy; and (4) defamation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (reiterating that this court

may affirm “on any ground apparent on the record”).

In particular, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Blackston’s

retaliation claim failed because nearly a year passed between the time she complained of

harassment and her termination, and the “intervening events” to which she points (e.g.,

being pulled off the register and requested to wash a bathroom wall) were not of the type

to “bridge the . . . temporal gap” to sufficiently allege causation. Seabrook v. Driscoll, 148

F.4th 264, 273 (4th Cir. 2025). We further conclude that Blackston’s remaining claims

failed because the supporting allegations were conclusory and failed to establish the basic

elements of the claims. See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009)

(“[N]aked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate some factual enhancement within the

complaint to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Blackston v. Starbucks Corp.,

No. 1:25-cv-01550-MSN-WBP (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2025). We dispense with oral argument

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2297 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED