Virgilia Rodriguez v. Wipro Limited

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 24-2137
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2137 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2137

VIRGILIA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WIPRO LIMITED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Susan C. Rodriguez, Magistrate Judge. (3:23-cv-00354-SCR)

Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 13, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Virgilia Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Howard Walters, Jr., LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2137 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Virgilia Rodriguez appeals the magistrate judge’s orders ∗ dismissing her amended

civil action and denying her motions for reconsideration and to assign her action to a

different judge, confining her appeal to the dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies of her claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act upheld on reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the magistrate judge’s rulings.

See Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (providing standard of

review for reconsideration motion); Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d

658, 668 (4th Cir. 2015) (providing standard for reviewing whether Appellant properly

exhausted her administrative remedies). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s

orders. Rodriguez v. Wipro Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00354-SCR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30 & Nov. 5,

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

∗ The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).