Ashley Cook v. Day & Zimmerman Management Services, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-1949
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1949 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1949

ASHLEY A. COOK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAY & ZIMMERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00111-DJN)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ashley A. Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Jean Carapella, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1949 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ashley A. Cook appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to

dismiss Cook’s amended complaint alleging unequal pay in violation of the Equal Pay Act,

29 U.S.C. § 206(d). * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 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.”). We have reviewed the record in conjunction

with the issues raised in the informal brief and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. Cook v. Day & Zimmerman Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 3:25-

cv-00111-DJN (E.D. Va. July 2, 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

* We deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss this appeal. See, e.g., Bankers Tr. Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386 (1978) (reiterating “that the separate-document rule [provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 58] must be mechanically applied in determining whether an appeal is timely” (internal quotation marks omitted)).