Betty Hart v. Hanover County School Board, No. 13-1642 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1642 BETTY W. HART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; MICHAEL R. ASHBY, SR.,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 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 4, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยงยง 201219 (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. We have reviewed Hart timely appealed. the record and considered parties arguments and find no reversible error. we affirm the district court s final order. the Accordingly, Hart v. Hanover County Sch. Bd., No. 3:10-cv-00794-JRS (E.D. Va. May 2, 2013). We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.