# Betty Hart v. Hanover County School Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 4, 2013 · 547 F. App'x 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2644899

## Case

- **Full name:** Betty W. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; Michael R. Ashby, Sr., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 4, 2013
- **Citations:** 547 F. App'x 298
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Davis, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2644899

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1642

BETTY W. HART,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; MICHAEL R. ASHBY, SR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00794-JRS)

Submitted: November 13, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013

Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David R. Simonsen, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Yvonne Steenstra Gibney, Senior Assistant County Attorney,
Hanover, Virginia; William Woodul Tunner, THOMPSON MCMULLAN,
P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Betty W. Hart, who was previously employed by the

Hanover County School Board (“the Board”), filed a complaint

against the Board and its Director of Pupil Transportation,

Michael Ashby, asserting that her employment was terminated in

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-

219 (West 1998 & Supp. 2013). We previously affirmed the

district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Hart’s complaint, but vacated the district court’s order denying

Hart’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to vacate, and her Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a) motion to amend her complaint. On remand, the

district court denied Hart’s motion to amend her complaint, and

denied her Rule 59(e) motion. Hart timely appealed.

We have reviewed the record and considered the

parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s final order. Hart v. Hanover

County Sch. Bd., No. 3:10-cv-00794-JRS (E.D. Va. May 2, 2013).

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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2644899. Public record. Not legal advice.