USCA4 Appeal: 23-1391 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1391

MARTHA HOELZER, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; RAYMOND FARROW, in his individual and official capacity; BARBARA J. STEPHENSON, in her individual and official capacity; DANIEL LEBOLD, in his individual and official capacity; DAVID ROUTH, in his individual and official capacity; DEBBIE DIBBERT, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: February 20, 2024 Decided: April 25, 2024

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Valerie L. Bateman, Carborro, North Carolina, June K. Allison, NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, Ryan Y. Park, Solicitor General, Lindsay Vance Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, Nicholas S. Brod, Deputy Solicitor General, Jeremy Lindsley, Assistant Attorney General, USCA4 Appeal: 23-1391 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1391 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/25/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Martha Hoelzer appeals the district court orders (1) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Hoelzer’s discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213; retaliation claim, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654; and claims alleging Defendants violated her due process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and denying Hoelzer’s motion for leave to amend the amended complaint; and (2) granting Daniel Lebold’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings on Hoelzer’s § 1983 claim against him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Hoelzer v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., No. 1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 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