Monica Jeffries v. Gaylord Entertainment

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999732192-2] Originating case number: 8:10-cv-00691-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778108]. Mailed to: Monica Jeffries 414 Winslow Road Oxon Hill, MD 20745-1432. [15-2479]

Appeal: 15-2479

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2479

MONICA JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GAYLORD
ENTERTAINMENT;
CONVENTION CENTER,

GAYLORD

NATIONAL

RESORT

AND

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00691-PJM)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.
Jay Paul Holland, Levi S.
Zaslow, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2479

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Monica Jeffries appeals from the district court’s judgment
in

Defendants’

retaliation

favor

claims,

on

her

brought

disability

pursuant

to

discrimination
the

Americans

and
with

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012).
Appellees

have

moved

to

dismiss

the

appeal.

The

district

court’s judgment was entered in 2013, affirmed by this court in
2013, and the Supreme Court denied Jeffries’ petition for writ
of certiorari in 2014.

The district court’s judgment is not

subject to relitigation before this court.

See Patterson v.

City of Newport News, 364 F.2d 816, 818 (4th Cir. 1966) (“That
judgment having become final with the Supreme Court’s dismissal
of the appeal and denial of certiorari, it is not subject to
relitigation in the lower federal courts.”).

Because we have

previously affirmed the district court’s judgment, the appeal is
duplicative.
To

the

extent

Jeffries’

appellate

filings

could

be

construed as a challenge to this court’s 2013 order affirming
the district court’s judgment, the time for filing a rehearing
petition

expired

long

ago.

See

Fed.

R.

App.

P.

40(a)(1)

(“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local
rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days
after entry of judgment.”).

Accordingly, we grant Appellees’

motion and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument
2

Appeal: 15-2479

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3