Peter Makdisi v. EEOC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-1851
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1851 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1851

PETER MAKDISI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00707-DJN)

Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Makdisi, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1851 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Peter Makdisi appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting Defendant’s motion to

dismiss Makdisi’s amended complaint seeking mandamus relief and money damages; and

(2) sua sponte dismissing without prejudice Makdisi’s second amended complaint raising

similar claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See, e.g.,

Georator Corp. v. EEOC, 592 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1979) (finding EEOC determination

not reviewable under Administrative Procedure Act because such a determination is

“merely preparatory to further proceedings,” as opposed to a final agency action).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Makdisi v. EEOC, No. 3:23-cv-00707-

DJN (E.D. Va. July 2, 2024; July 19, 2024). 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