From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hart v. Hanover Cnty. Sch. Bd.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 4, 2013
547 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-1642

12-04-2013

BETTY W. HART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; MICHAEL R. ASHBY, SR., Defendants - Appellees.

David R. Simonsen, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Yvonne Steenstra Gibney, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Hanover, Virginia; William Woodul Tunner, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00794-JRS) Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Simonsen, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Yvonne Steenstra Gibney, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Hanover, Virginia; William Woodul Tunner, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Betty W. Hart, who was previously employed by the Hanover County School Board ("the Board"), filed a complaint against the Board and its Director of Pupil Transportation, Michael Ashby, asserting that her employment was terminated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219 (West 1998 & Supp. 2013). We previously affirmed the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Hart's complaint, but vacated the district court's order denying Hart's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to vacate, and her Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) motion to amend her complaint. On remand, the district court denied Hart's motion to amend her complaint, and denied her Rule 59(e) motion. Hart timely appealed.

We have reviewed the record and considered the parties' arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's final order. Hart v. Hanover County Sch. Bd., No. 3:10-cv-00794-JRS (E.D. Va. May 2, 2013). 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


Summaries of

Hart v. Hanover Cnty. Sch. Bd.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 4, 2013
547 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Hart v. Hanover Cnty. Sch. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:BETTY W. HART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 4, 2013

Citations

547 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Williams v. City of Raleigh

"A denial of leave to amend due to the futility of the proposed amendments results in the failure to allege…

Saunders v. Clarke

When a plaintiff combines a Rule 59(e) motion with a Rule 15(a) request for leave to amend his or her…