Carol Bennett, d/b/a Brighton Stables v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., No. CA-04- 374-5-FL E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2005 & Mar. 28, 2005 .…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1487
CAROL BENNETT, d/b/a Brighton Stables,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERTSON-CECO CORPORATION, d/b/a CECO
Building Systems,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
VAN DEVENTER CONSTRUCTION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-374-5-FL)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Gale, Elizabeth Brooks
Scherer, SMITH & MOORE, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*We deny Bennett’s requests for judicial notice of a state
court order, two state court motions filed by the Appellee and a
portion of the December 1, 2003 transcript. Those items were part
of or referred to in the district court record.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Carol Bennett appeals the district court’s order and
judgment granting Robertson-Ceco Corporation’s motion to dismiss,
dismissing her claims and denying her motion under Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record
and the district court’s order. We agree with the district court
that the doctrine of res judicata resolves this case. Accordingly,
we affirm for that reason, as more fully espoused in the district
court’s opinion. See Bennett v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., No. CA-04-
374-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2005 & Mar. 28, 2005). We also deny
Bennett’s objection to the request to take judicial notice of the
state court opinion affirming the trial court’s order dismissing
her cross-claims. * We dispense with 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

-- 3 of 3 --