The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1696•Cara Elizabeth Liberto Dodson v. the Lutheran Village at Millers Grant, Inc.
25-1696Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 3, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1696
CARA ELIZABETH LIBERTO DODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE LUTHERAN VILLAGE AT MILLERS GRANT, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Erin Aslan, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00169-EA)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Terrell N. Roberts, III, ROBERTS & WOOD, Riverdale, Maryland, for
Appellant. Ralph L. Arnsdorf, Scott H. Phillips, Patrick M. Wachter, FRANKLIN &
PROKOPIK, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Cara Elizabeth Liberto Dodson appeals the magistrate judge’s* order granting
Defendant summary judgment on Liberto Dodson’s religious discrimination and failure-
to-accommodate claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and denying her “Motion for Leave to Produce Evidence
Essential to Justify Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Modify the
Scheduling Order.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Liberto Dodson v. The Lutheran Vill.
at Millers Grant, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00169-EA (D. Md. May 22, 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
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.