Tigress McDaniel v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1260 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1260 TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICARE LIMITED; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; DOES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00823-GCM) Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Michael Reefer, PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1260 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), for insufficient service of process, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and denying McDaniel’s motion to amend her complaint. * We have reviewed the record and discern no error in the district court’s analysis under either Rule 12(b)(5) or Rule 12(b)(6), and likewise hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDaniel’s motion for leave to amend her complaint. See Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard of review for denials of leave to amend). In addition to challenging the merits of the district court’s rulings, McDaniel also asserts that the presiding judge was unfairly biased against her but, upon review of the record, we discern no basis for such a claim. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (explaining that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McDaniel v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd., No. 3:24-cv-00823-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2025). 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 In this court, McDaniel has filed motions for sanctions and to amend her reply. * While we grant the motion to amend, we deny the motion for sanctions. We likewise deny Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs related to the sanctions motion. 2