Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 14-1909
KATHLEEN I. MELENDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE;
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02747-WMN)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Kathleen I. Melendez -- an employee of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services (the department) -appeals from the district courts order denying her Fed. R. Civ.
P.
59(e)
granting
motion
seeking
Defendant
reconsideration
Secretary
Kathleen
of
its
Sebelius
prior
order
motion
under
challenge
under
Rule
We affirm.
12(b)(1)
is
raised
to
the
the
plaintiff.
asserted
basis
for
jurisdiction
falls
on
the
may
consider
evidence
outside
the
pleadings
without
Richmond,
The court
Evans v. B.F.
Perkins
Co.,
quotation
166
marks
F.3d
642,
647
omitted).
We
(4th
Cir.
1999)
review
district
(internal
courts
Id.
Rehabilitation
administrative
court.
Act
remedies
must
before
exhaust
pursuing
their
an
available
action
in
federal
Cir.
2006);
The exhaustion
interference
Doe v.
29
C.F.R.
requirement
with
Oberweis
the
1614.103(a),
exists
operation
Dairy,
456
of
F.3d
to
minimize
the
704,
(b)(2)
federal
712
(7th
(2014).
judicial
government.
Cir.
2006).
any
wrong
it
may
have
committed.
Jasch
v.
Potter,
302 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting McRae v. Librarian
of Congress, 843 F.2d 1494, 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam)).
If
the
agency
determination
process
has
has
had
concerning
not
been
this
opportunity
discrimination,
obstructed.
It
and
the
has
has
made
administrative
been
exhausted.
(internal
failure
to
quotation
cooperate
exhaustion
when
it
in
marks
the
omitted).
administrative
prevents
the
agency
Id. at
complainants
process
precludes
from
making
complaint
to
enable
file . . . suit.
Even
by
failing
to
[investigation],
though
the
provide
sufficient
he
may
dismissal
is
not
final
refused
to
provide
such
information
and
thereby
failure
to
exhaust
administrative
remedies.
(internal
process
by
filing
an
administrative
complaint
an
administrative
judge
after
the
issuance
of
the
the
administrative
judge,
however,
Melendez
failed
to
to
dismissal
reinstate
without
her
administrative
prejudice.
By
complaint
failing
to
so
after
its
cooperate,
Woodard,
717
F.2d
at
915.
administrative remedies.
She
thus
failed
to
exhaust
her
See Jones v.
Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300-01 (4th Cir. 2009); Laber,
438 F.3d at 414 n.5.
After review of the parties briefs, we reject Melendezs
claim of error, raised for the first time on appeal, that she
was
not
required
to
administratively
post-complaint retaliation.
exhaust
merit
administrative
Melendezs
remedies
contentions
and
claim
of
her
acted
administrative process.
that
in
We also reject as
she
good
exhausted
faith
in
her
the
district
courts
denial
of
her
Rule
59(e)
motion.
See Mayfield v. Natl Assn for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.,
674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (A Rule 59(e) motion [the
denial of which is reviewed for abuse of discretion] may only be
granted in three situations: (1) to accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or
prevent
manifest
omitted)).
law.
injustice.
(internal
quotation
marks
evidence
because
nothing
in
the
record
suggests
that
the
at
the
time
of
the
district
courts
dismissal
ruling.
See Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 198
(4th Cir. 2006).
dismissing
Melendezs
action,
and
nothing
in
her
motion
Because Rule
Rule
59(e)
motion
raising
additional
arguments
to
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
courts
judgment.
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED