UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2333

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.

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)

Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019

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Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel filed in the district court a civil action alleging

claims under

, 1986 (2012),

(2012), and

(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

(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.,

(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

3