UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1121 LOUISE E. LUALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TINA C. NTUEN; MARIANA WILLIAMS; BRENDA K. SMITH; VELVET GARRIQUES; LINDA GLASGOW, Plaintiffs, versus GUILFORD HEALTH CARE CENTER; PARENT CORPORATION MEDICAL FACILITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-1927 LOUISE E. LUALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TINA C. NTUEN; MARIANA WILLIAMS; BRENDA K. SMITH; VELVET GARRIQUES; LINDA GLASGOW, Plaintiffs,  versus GUILFORD HEALTH CARE CENTER; PARENT CORPORATION MEDICAL FACILITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-02-738-1) Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patricia Williams Goodson, KILPATRICK STOCKTON L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Louise E. Luallen appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her discrimination claims based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000), and denying her motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Luallen’s Title VII claims on the reasoning of the district court. See Luallen v. Guilford Health Care Ctr., No. CA-02-738-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2003; June 15, 2004). Moreover, we conclude that Luallen waived her right to appeal the district court’s denial of her Rule 60(b) motion by failing to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). We grant Appellees’ motions to submit these appeals on the briefs and 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 -