Case Name: Daisy EDMUNDSON-SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS-MID ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Debi Brenner; Mike Kostners; Carolina Kerns, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 67 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 02-1950
Parties: Daisy EDMUNDSON-SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS-MID ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Debi Brenner; Mike Kostners; Carolina Kerns, Defendants.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Daisy EDMUNDSON-SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS-MID ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Debi Brenner; Mike Kostners; Carolina Kerns, Defendants.
No. 02-1950.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Daisy Edmundson-Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Trena Buckman, McGuire-woods, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daisy Edmundson-Sullivan appeals from the orders of the district court dismissing her claims alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17 (2000). EdmundsonSullivan raises several claims of error regarding matters that either were not raised in the district court or involve defendants that are not parties to the ease on appeal. Matters raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Exceptions to this rule are made only in those limited circumstances that would result in unrecognized plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Id. Neither of these factors is present in Edmundson-Sullivan's claims. Because Edmundson-Sullivan presents no other cognizable claims for review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.