UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2373
LORI D. RHOADS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its
capacity as receiver for Standard Federal
Savings Bank and Standard Federal Savings
Association,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, a/k/a Standard
Federal Savings & Loan Association, as
Receiver,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CA-94-1548-CCB)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lori D. Rhoads, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Doherty, FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lori D. Rhoads again appeals to this court following our
reversal and remand, in part, so that she could pursue her claim
that she was retaliated against in her employment in violation of
the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”). See Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 2001). On
remand, Rhoads was awarded $120,006 in back pay from the jury.
Nonetheless, Rhoads again appeals raising several issues. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Rhoads contests the district court’s denial of her motion
to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). As noted by the
district court, the claims raised in Rhoads’ Rule 60(b) motion are
barred by the law of the case doctrine, United States v. Aramony,
166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999), as this court previously
considered the claims in her prior appeal.
Rhoads’ claim that she was entitled to recover
compensatory and punitive damages in her trial for violation of the
ADA’s anti-retaliation provision fails because such relief is
unavailable. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Sec., 355 F.3d 961, 965 (7th
Cir. 2004). Thus, Rhoads’ claim that the district court erred in
limiting her evidence to prove these damages also fails.
Next, Rhoads alleges that she was entitled to prejudgment
interest on her award, attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. We
have reviewed the record and arguments made by the parties on
- 3 -
appeal and find no reversible error. Thus, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Rhoads v. FDIC, 286 F.
Supp. 2d 532, 540-44 (D. Md. 2003).
Finally, Rhoads alleges numerous errors regarding this
court’s decision in her prior appeal. These issues are now the law
of the case and may not be reasserted in her second appeal.
Aramony, 166 F.3d at 661.
Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Rhoads’ motion for oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -