Temple v. Medical University

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2005
• Docket: 04-1435
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1435

JAN Z. TEMPLE, Ph.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, a State Agency,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-02-2104-18BG-2)

Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 29, 2005

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis T. Draine, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Matthew K. Mahoney, Carol B. Ervin, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Jan Z. Temple, Ph.D., appeals the district court's orders

dismissing her civil action, denying her motion for leave to amend

her complaint, and denying relief on her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

orders and find no reversible error. We affirm the district

court’s dismissal of Temple’s complaint, and its denial of her

motion to amend, on the reasoning of the district court. See

Temple v. Medical Univ. of South Carolina, No. CA-02-2104-18BG-2

(D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2003; Feb. 9, 2004). In addition, we find that

the district court’s denials of Temple’s Rule 59(e) motions were

not an abuse of discretion. Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991). See Temple v. Medical Univ. of

South Carolina, No. CA-02-2104-18BG-2 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2003; Mar.

17, 2004). 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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -