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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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