Eloise Woods v. Equity Residential

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2203 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2203 ELOISE WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT LLC; SAMUEL ZELL; MARK PARRELL; FRANCES NOLAN; NICOLE KLEIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00013-MSN-LRV) Submitted: March 17, 2025 Decided: April 10, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eloise Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew M. Moore, SHULMAN ROGERS, P.A., Potomac, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2203 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eloise Woods appeals from the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend its prior order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in these rulings. See Guerrero v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc., 115 F.4th 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard governing review of dismissal of complaint for failure to state claim on which relief can be granted); Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard governing review of denial of Rule 59(e) motion). We also reject Woods’ argument raised for the first time on appeal that the dismissal of her action should have been without prejudice. See Milla v. Brown, 109 F.4th 222, 234 (4th Cir. 2024) (discussing parameters governing consideration of issues raised for first time on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Woods v. Equity Residential, No. 1:23-cv-00013-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va. Aug. 28 & Oct. 18, 2023). 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 2