Janice Lawyer v. Verizon Communications, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1996
JANICE LAWYER; REBECCA THOMAS; MELISSA SPENCER; NAKIA
PURNELL; VALERIE PARKER; TALISA MOORE; CHERYL MOODY; MABLE
JONES; ELLA HARDY; JOYCE GODFREY; LANGO FLANAGAN; CHRISTINA
EASON; CAROL VOTZKE; ELLEN DENSMORE; BEATRICE DABNEY;
MICHELE CHANEY-WARD; SALIE BARKLEY; MERCI ARMAH; TRACY
ANDERSON-BAILEY; TERRI ANDERSON; TANZY B. BROWN; CHARMAINE
SMITH; AMELIA PITTMAN; ELVETER ADAMS; TONI COBBS; TARA
O'ROURKE; REBECCA ANN DUNN; KEVIN THOMPSON; TAMMY TERRY;
HELEN MILLER,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; VERIZON MARYLAND,
INCORPORATED; VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED; VERIZON
VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VERIZON WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED;
VERIZON SERVICES CORPORATION; VERIZON ADVANCED DATA,
INCORPORATED; VERIZON AVENUE CORPORATION; VERIZON CORPORATE
SERVICES CORPORATION,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10-
cv-01287-RWT)
Submitted: May 12, 2011 Decided: May 27, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
John Hermina, George Hermina, HERMINA LAW GROUP, Laurel,
Maryland, for Appellants. M. Carter DeLorme, Kye D. Pawlenko,
JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ state law and Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 201-219 (West 1998 & Supp. 2010) claims. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. See Lawyer v. Verizon Commc’ns,
Inc., No. 8:10-cv-01287-RWT (D. Md. July 28, 2010). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --