Nichole McGill v. Loudoun County Transit

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1663
NICHOLE MCGILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOUDOUN COUNTY TRANSIT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 25-1962
NICHOLE MCGILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOUDOUN COUNTY TRANSIT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 25-2181
NICHOLE MCGILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
v.
LOUDOUN COUNTY TRANSIT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00721-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nichole McGill, Appellant Pro Se. Gilda Bethany Ingle, Anthonia Remi Omidiji,
LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Nichole McGill appeals several district court orders
entered in her action alleging that Loudon County Transit (“LCT”) failed to accommodate
her health issues, in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101
to 12213, and Virginia law.* The district court dismissed McGill’s action, without
prejudice, because McGill failed to comply with her discovery obligations and to comply
with the district court’s order directing McGill to respond to LCT’s discovery requests.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error by the district court. See,
e.g., United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462-63 (4th Cir. 1993) (listing factors
that should be considered before dismissing a case as a sanction, including “the degree of
the wrongdoer’s culpability” and “the prejudice to the judicial process and the
administration of justice”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. McGill
v. Loudon Cnty. Transit, No. 1:25-cv-00721-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Sep. 15, 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
* McGill has several motions pending in this court, which we deny.

-- 3 of 3 --