Case Name: Monica JEFFRIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT; Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 641 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 15-2479
Parties: Monica JEFFRIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT; Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
Monica JEFFRIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT; Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2479.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 21, 2016.
Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Jay Paul Holland, Levi S. Zaslow, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 certiora-ri, 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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.