Sharon THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charlie NELMS, Individually and in his official capacity as Chancellor of North Carolina Central University; Raymond C. Pierce, Individually and in his official capacity as Dean of the North Carolina Central School of Law; David A. Green, Individually and in his official capacity as Associate Dean of North Carolina Central University School of Law; Andria Knight, Individually and in her official capacity as Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Director of NC Central University; North Carolina Central University; Letitia K. Melvin, University Admin Mgr I; Bijoy K. Sahoo, Individually and in official capacity as Dean, School of Business; Kaye Webb, Individually and in official capacity; Vanessa Gregory, Individually and in official capacity-Employee Relations Manager; Laurie Charest, Individually and in official capacity; Audrey Crawford-Turner, Individually and in official capacity as Vice Chancellor of Human Resources; North Carolina Office Of Administrative Hearings, Civil Rights Division; Julia Mann, III, Individually and in official capacity as Director and Chief ALJ; Lamont A. Goins, Individually and in official capacity as Director, Civil Rights; June M. Smith, Individually and in official capacity as Civil Rights Compliance Manager; Joanna A. French, Individually and in official capacity as Lead Civil Rights Investigator; Tammy A. Tompkins, Individually and in official capacity as Lead Civil Rights Investigator; Larry D. Williams, Individually and in official capacity as Civil Rights Investigator; The State Of North Carolina; Charles L. Becton, Individually and in official capacity as Interim Chancellor; Jerome Goodwin, Individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, 546 F. App'x 275

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharon Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for failing to properly serve process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Thomas leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Nelms, No. 1:09-cv-00491-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 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. Thomas also seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of her Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(

e) motion. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over an appeal from that motion because Thomas did not file a new notice of appeal or amend her notice of appeal to embrace the district court’s order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).