Case Name: Sandhya CHALASANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-02
Citations: 574 F. App'x 14
Docket Number: No. 13-3491-cv
Parties: Sandhya CHALASANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 14–14

Head Matter:
Sandhya CHALASANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-3491-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 2, 2014.
Sandhya Chalasani, pro se, Jamaica, NY, for Appellant.
Sean H. Close, Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Sandhya Chalasani, pro se, appeals from the district court's August 13, 2013 order denying her motion to reconsider its May 22, 2012 dismissal without prejudice of her employment discrimination complaint against United Cerebral Palsy. We review the denial of a reconsideration motion for an abuse of discretion. See Lora v. O'Heaney, 602 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir.2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion because Chalasani failed to point to any controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked, or anything else that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's conclusion that her complaint was properly dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and 41(b). See id.
We have considered Chalasani's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.
. As the district court explained, because the dismissal was 'without prejudice," Chalasani can re-file any claims that were not time-barred.