Annie-Grace Kline v. Leidos, Inc.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1202 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1202 ANNIE-GRACE KLINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEIDOS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01343-LMB-WEF) Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 20, 2025 Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Annie-Grace Kline, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Murphy, OGLETREE DEAKINS, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1202 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Annie-Grace Kline appeals the district court’s order denying the “Motion to Reopen Case” she filed after the district court dismissed Kline’s employment-related action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). * We have reviewed the record and affirm the district court’s order on other grounds “apparent on the record.” Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019). Namely, while the district court should have construed the motion as being brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (citation modified)); see also, e.g., Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 313, 319 (2025) (explaining that although a voluntary dismissal without prejudice “strips a court of its equitable power to revise its earlier rulings,” a party can move for relief under Rule 60(b) because such a dismissal is a “‘final proceeding’”), we conclude that the “Motion to Reopen Case” failed to establish grounds for relief under either Rule. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 * Kline has filed motions to expedite, which we deny as moot. 2