Case Name: Andrea C. WEATHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. ZIKO; Gregory Connor; Herbert B. Peterson; Jonathan Kotch; Barbara K. Rimer; Sandra L. Martin; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-16
Citations: 648 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 15-2485
Parties: Andrea C. WEATHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. ZIKO; Gregory Connor; Herbert B. Peterson; Jonathan Kotch; Barbara K. Rimer; Sandra L. Martin; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
Andrea C. WEATHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. ZIKO; Gregory Connor; Herbert B. Peterson; Jonathan Kotch; Barbara K. Rimer; Sandra L. Martin; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2485.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2016.
Decided: May 16, 2016.
Andrea C. Weathers, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Thomas Tulchin, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Craig Daniel Schauer, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrea C. Weathers appeals the district court's order dismissing her federal claims with prejudice and her state law claims without prejudice and its order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter and amend its judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See Alvarado v. Bd. of Tr. of Montgomery Cmty. Coll., 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.1991) (requiring plaintiff alleging discrimination based on failure to promote to demonstrate that she applied for promotion and was qualified for promotion); Square Constr. Co. v. Washington Metro. Area Trans. Auth., 657 F.2d 68, 71 (4th Cir.1981) (requiring party to "demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim or defense" to obtain relief through Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3)); see also Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 355-56 (4th Cir.2004) ("[T]he doctrine of res judicata not only bars claims that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding, but also claims that could have been litigated."). 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.
AFFIRMED.