Andrea Weathers v. Thomas Ziko
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00828-TDS-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999823221].. [15-2485]
Appeal: 15-2485
Doc: 19
Filed: 05/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2485
ANDREA C. WEATHERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS J. ZIKO; GREGORY CONNOR; HERBERT B. PETERSON;
JONATHAN KOTCH; BARBARA K. RIMER; SANDRA L. MARTIN; THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00828-TDS-JEP)
Submitted:
April 29, 2016
Decided:
May 16, 2016
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrea C. Weathers, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew Thomas Tulchin,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Gary S. Parsons, Craig Daniel Schauer, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2485
Doc: 19
Filed: 05/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Andrea
C.
Weathers
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
dismissing her federal claims with prejudice and her state law
claims without prejudice and its order denying her Fed. R. Civ.
P.
59(e)
motion
to
alter
and
amend
its
judgment.
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we affirm the district court’s orders.
We
have
Accordingly,
See Alvarado v. Bd. of
Tr. of Montgomery Cmty. Coll., 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991)
(requiring plaintiff alleging discrimination based on failure to
promote to demonstrate that she applied for promotion and was
qualified
Metro.
for
Area
promotion);
Transp.
Square
Auth.,
657
Constr.
F.2d
68,
Co.
71
v.
(4th
Washington
Cir.
1981)
(requiring party to “demonstrate the existence of a meritorious
claim
or
60(b)(3));
defense”
to
obtain
relief
through
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
see also Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345,
355-56 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata not only
bars claims that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding,
but also claims that could have been litigated.”).
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?