Opinion
No. 18-2333
02-28-2019
TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL & TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY; STEPHANIE D. LYNCH, in her individual and official capacity; KEITH SCHIMMEL, in his individual and official capacity; KATHERINE MURPHY, in her individual and official capacity; CHARLES WALDRUP, in his individual and official capacity; SHERRI AVENT, in her individual and official capacity; HAROLD MARTIN, in his individual and official capacity; DONNA EATON, in her individual and official capacity; NICOLE PRIDE, in her individual and official capacity; BERYL MCEWAN, in her individual and official capacity; CLAY GLOSTER, in his individual and official capacity; BETHANY MEIGHEN, in her individual and official capacity; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM, Defendants - Appellees.
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED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-00530-RJC-DSC) Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel filed in the district court a civil action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1986 (2012), 20 U.S.C. § 1091 (2012), and 34 C.F.R. § 668.34 (2018), as well as various state law claims. The district court sua sponte dismissed McDaniel's complaint, which was filed in forma pauperis, for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. To the extent McDaniel asserts that the district court displayed bias against her, we conclude that the allegation is not supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McDaniel v. N.C. Agric. & Tech. State Univ., No. 3:18-cv-00530-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2018). We modify the district court's judgment, though, to reflect that the dismissal be without prejudice because McDaniel was not given an opportunity to respond or amend her complaint before the court's sua sponte dismissal. See Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Terr., 841 F.3d 632, 642 (4th Cir. 2016). 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 AS MODIFIED