Andrea C. Weathers v. Thomas J. Ziko

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 for promotion); Square Constr. Co. v. Washington
Metro. Area Transp. Auth., 657 F.2d 68, 71 (4th Cir. 1981)
(requiring party to “demonstrate the existence of a meritorious
claim or defense” to obtain relief through Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3)); 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 of 2 --