MCDANIEL v. BAILEY LLC 30 (2019)

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court's order denying her renewed motion for recusal of the district court judge and dismissing her civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McDaniel v. Bailey, No. 3:18-cv-00204-RJC-DLH, 2018 WL 3381428 (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2018).

On appeal, McDaniel contends that her complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice to give her the opportunity to amend or modify it. However, this is McDaniel's second complaint alleging essentially the same claims against the same Defendants. This court modified the district court's dismissal of McDaniel's first such complaint to be without prejudice, allowing McDaniel the opportunity to file the instant complaint. See McDaniel v. Bailey, 710 F. App'x 604, 606 (4th Cir. 2018). McDaniel is not entitled to any further opportunities to raise the same claims against these Defendants.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.