Monica Jeffries v. Gaylord Entertainment , 641 F. App'x 265 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2479
MONICA JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT; GAYLORD NATIONAL RESORT AND
CONVENTION CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-00691-PJM)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Jay Paul Holland, Levi S.
Zaslow, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Monica Jeffries appeals from the district court’s judgment
in Defendants’ favor on her disability discrimination and
retaliation claims, brought pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2012).
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal. The district
court’s judgment was entered in 2013, affirmed by this court in
2013, and the Supreme Court denied Jeffries’ petition for writ
of certiorari in 2014. The district court’s judgment is not
subject to relitigation before this court. See Patterson v.
City of Newport News, 364 F.2d 816, 818 (4th Cir. 1966) (“That
judgment having become final with the Supreme Court’s dismissal
of the appeal and denial of certiorari, it is not subject to
relitigation in the lower federal courts.”). Because we have
previously affirmed the district court’s judgment, the appeal is
duplicative.
To the extent Jeffries’ appellate filings could be
construed as a challenge to this court’s 2013 order affirming
the district court’s judgment, the time for filing a rehearing
petition expired long ago. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1)
(“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local
rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days
after entry of judgment.”). Accordingly, we grant Appellees’
motion and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3