Traft v. American Threshold ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1695
MAUREEN A. TRAFT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN THRESHOLD INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CA-97-162-1-T)
Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maureen A. Traft, Appellant Pro Se. Grant Beecher Osborne, MCGUIRE,
WOOD & BISSETTE, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maureen A. Traft appeals from the district court's order deny-
ing her motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is
without merit. Traft’s motion for reconsideration does not demon-
strate that her action was improperly dismissed. We therefore find
that the district court’s denial of her Rule 59(e) motion was not
an abuse of discretion,* and affirm the district court’s order on
the reasoning of the district court. Traft v. American Threshold
Indus., Inc., No. CA-97-162-1-T (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 1998). To the
extent Traft raises issues in her informal brief not previously
raised in the district court, including her attempt to raise claims
relating to documents not part of the district court’s record, we
decline to consider such claims or documents on appeal. We deny
Traft’s motion to vacate this court’s order allowing the Appellee
leave to supplement its informal brief and deny as moot Traft’s
petition for order of lis pendens. We 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
*
See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir.
1982).
2