Case Name: Carol BENNETT, d/b/a Brighton Stables, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERTSON-CECO CORPORATION, d/b/a CECO Building Systems, Defendant-Appellee, and Van Deventer Construction, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-06
Citations: 157 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 05-1487
Parties: Carol BENNETT, d/b/a Brighton Stables, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ROBERTSON-CECO CORPORATION, d/b/a CECO Building Systems, Defendant—Appellee, and Van Deventer Construction, Defendant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
Carol BENNETT, d/b/a Brighton Stables, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ROBERTSON-CECO CORPORATION, d/b/a CECO Building Systems, Defendant—Appellee, and Van Deventer Construction, Defendant.
No. 05-1487.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2005.
Carol Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Gale, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Smith & Moore, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carol Bennett appeals the district court's order and judgment granting Robertson-Ceco Corporation's motion to dismiss, dismissing her claims and denying her motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order. We agree with the district court that the doctrine of res judicata resolves this case. Accordingly, we affirm for that reason, as more fully espoused in the district court's opinion. See Bennett v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., No. CA-04-374-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2005 & Mar. 28, 2005). We also deny Bennett's objection to the request to take judicial notice of the state court opinion affirming the trial court's order dismissing her cross-claims. 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
We deny Bennett's requests for judicial notice of a state court order, two state court motions filed by the Appellee and a portion of the December 1, 2003 transcript. Those items were part of or referred to in the district court record.