Andrea Weathers v. Thomas Ziko


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2485 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2485 ANDREA C. WEATHERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS J. ZIKO; GREGORY CONNOR; HERBERT B.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?