Thomas Ford v. Daniel Driscoll

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 25-1311
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1311 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1311

THOMAS L. FORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DANIEL P. DRISCOLL, Secretary of the Army,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00362-JAG)

Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas L. Ford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1311 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas L. Ford appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendant’s motion to

dismiss Ford’s multiple employment-related claims, including claims brought pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, the

American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634, the Family and Medical Leave Act

(FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29

U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See,

e.g., Shipton v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 109 F.4th 701, 709 (4th Cir. 2024) (observing

that a plaintiff seeking redress under the FMLA must bring suit, at the latest, within three

years of the challenged action); Walton v. Marker, 33 F.4th 165, 172 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A]

plaintiff must exhaust [his Title VII and ADEA] administrative remedies by bringing a

charge with the EEOC.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Ford v. Driscoll, No. 3:24-cv-

00362-JAG (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2024; Feb. 5, 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

* Ford has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, and we deny that motion.