Luallen v. Guilford Health Care ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1121
    LOUISE E. LUALLEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    TINA C. NTUEN; MARIANA WILLIAMS; BRENDA K.
    SMITH; VELVET GARRIQUES; LINDA GLASGOW,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    GUILFORD    HEALTH    CARE    CENTER;    PARENT
    CORPORATION   MEDICAL   FACILITIES    OF  NORTH
    CAROLINA, INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-1927
    LOUISE E. LUALLEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    TINA C. NTUEN; MARIANA WILLIAMS; BRENDA K.
    SMITH; VELVET GARRIQUES; LINDA GLASGOW,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    GUILFORD    HEALTH    CARE    CENTER;    PARENT
    CORPORATION   MEDICAL   FACILITIES    OF  NORTH
    CAROLINA, INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CA-02-738-1)
    Submitted:   November 24, 2004           Decided:   December 20, 2004
    Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Patricia Williams Goodson, KILPATRICK STOCKTON L.L.P., Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Louise E. Luallen appeals the district court’s order
    denying relief on her discrimination claims based on Title VII of
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000),
    and denying her motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).    We have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we
    affirm the denial of Luallen’s Title VII claims on the reasoning of
    the district court.   See Luallen v. Guilford Health Care Ctr., No.
    CA-02-738-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2003; June 15, 2004).   Moreover, we
    conclude that Luallen waived her right to appeal the district
    court’s denial of her Rule 60(b) motion by failing to comply with
    Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). We grant Appellees’ motions to submit
    these   appeals on the briefs and dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1121

Filed Date: 12/20/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021