Case Name: Betty Marie DRYE, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Board of Trustees; P. Baroni, In his individual and official capacities; P. Whitlock, In her individual and official capacities, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-08
Citations: 469 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 11-3348
Parties: Betty Marie DRYE, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Board of Trustees; P. Baroni, In his individual and official capacities; P. Whitlock, In her individual and official capacities, Appellees.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 495–495

Head Matter:
Betty Marie DRYE, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Board of Trustees; P. Baroni, In his individual and official capacities; P. Whitlock, In her individual and official capacities, Appellees.
No. 11-3348.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2012.
Filed: May 8, 2012.
Luther Oneal Sutter, Harrill & Sutter, Benton, AR, for Appellant.
Sarah James, Associate General Counsel University of Arkansas Office of General Counsel, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this action claiming employment-related discrimination and retaliation, Betty Marie Drye appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment, and the court's denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Upon careful de novo review, this court finds no basis for reversing the summary judgment decision. See Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir.2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment decision). This court further concludes that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying Drye's Rule 59(e) motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motion).
This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.