FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10594066
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Peter Makdisi v. EEOC

No. 10594066 · Decided May 27, 2025
No. 10594066 · Fourth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
May 27, 2025
Citation
No. 10594066
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full 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USCA4 Appeal: 24-1851 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1851 PETER MAKDISI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2
Plain English Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1851 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1851 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Peter Makdisi v. EEOC in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 27, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10594066 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →