Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0323-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ivette T. ECHENIQUE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CONVERGYS; Onstar, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 11-2421.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 24, 2012.
    Decided: May 30, 2012.
    Ivette T. Echenique, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Joseph Dalton, Margaret Kingston, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Ivette Echenique appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Echenique v. Convergys, No. 3:11-cv-00147-RJC-DCK, 2011 WL 6082708 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2011). To the extent that Echenique seeks to present new evidence on appeal, we decline to consider it. See Phonometrics, Inc. v. Westin Hotel Co., 819 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (“We, as a court of review, generally do not consider evidence that has not been considered by the district court.”); Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n. 26 (5th Cir.1999) (“An appellate court may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal.”). We deny Eehenique’s motion for transcripts 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.