Opinion
No. 18-1836
01-17-2019
TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHELLE FEIMSTER BAILEY; INFINITY BAIL BONDS, LLC; RICHARD HUFFMAN; ANNA MILLS WAGONER; JULIA A. TITUS EMERSON; AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY; ASSURANT SPECIALTY PROPERTY; W. ERWIN SPAINHOUR; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, f/k/a Wachovia Bank; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-30, Defendants - Appellees.
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brandt Kuykendal, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00204-RJC-DLH) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brandt Kuykendal, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court's order denying her renewed motion for recusal of the district court judge and dismissing her civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McDaniel v. Bailey, No. 3:18-cv-00204-RJC-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2018).
On appeal, McDaniel contends that her complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice to give her the opportunity to amend or modify it. However, this is McDaniel's second complaint alleging essentially the same claims against the same Defendants. This court modified the district court's dismissal of McDaniel's first such complaint to be without prejudice, allowing McDaniel the opportunity to file the instant complaint. See McDaniel v. Bailey, 710 F. App'x 604, 606 (4th Cir. 2018) (No. 17-2117). McDaniel is not entitled to any further opportunities to raise the same claims against these Defendants.
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