McKinzie v. Bank of America

── McKinzie v. Bank of America ── Case No.: 25-2125 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 30, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-2125 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 30, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LATASHA MCKINZIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-2125 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-00754-MLG-JMR) BANK OF AMERICA, (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiff Latasha McKinzie, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her racial-discrimination suit against Defendant Bank of America under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New Mexico state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Plaintiff has failed to explain why the district court erred, we affirm. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-2125 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 2 Plaintiff alleges that she was racially discriminated against at a local branch of Bank of America on June 20, 2024. She says that she presented a valid check, but that the Bank refused to cash it. The Bank told Plaintiff that it would not cash the check because the signature on the check did not match earlier signatures on checks from that account. But Plaintiff maintains that she had never presented a check from that account before, and thus the Bank would not have had any signatures for comparison. Plaintiff has now filed three iterations of this lawsuit. She initially sued the Bank in New Mexico state court for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, civil- rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112. See McKinzie v. Bank of Am., No. 1:24-cv- 00892-WJ-JMR, 2025 WL 835826, at *3 (D. N.M. March 17, 2025). Her claims were removed to federal court but dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. See id. at *1. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which she asserted violations of Title VII and the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. See id. at *3. The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, explaining that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim under Title VII since she had never alleged that she was employed by the Bank, and that Plaintiff’s New Mexico Civil Rights Act claim failed because the Bank is not a public body. See id. In June 2025 Plaintiff again sued the Bank in federal district court, asserting a § 1981 discrimination claim and a § 1983 civil-rights claim. See McKinzie v. Bank of Am., No. 1:25-cv-00525-MIS-LF,