Angela Nails v. Carlyle Group Global

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-7197
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-7197 September Term, 2024 1:24-cv-01884-UNA Filed On: April 28, 2025 Angela Nails,

Appellant

v.

Carlyle Group Global and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Walker, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s July 24, 2024 and November 20, 2024 orders be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in construing her complaint as raising a claim only under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and she has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that she failed to state a claim under that statute. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). Additionally, appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration because the motion merely repeated appellant’s prior assertions and raised arguments that were not relevant to the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (denials of Rule 59(e) motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-7197 September Term, 2024

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2