UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1610

SHANELL Y. ROYAL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JANE KIRSCHLING, in her official capacity as Dean and Professor at the University of Maryland School of Nursing , Defendant

- Appellee

.

No. 20
- 1614

SHANELL Y. ROYAL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL & SCHOOL OF NURSING

- DOCTOR OF NURSING PRACTICE; KELLY ALDRICH

MALAPANES, in her official capacity as Nursing Adjunct Professor at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; VERONICA AMOS, in her official capacity as Assistant Director of Nursing Anesthesia and Assistant Professor of OSAH at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; TECKLA CHUDE, in his official ca pacity as Clinical Instructor at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; MICHELLE GONZALES, in her official capacity as Clinical Instructor, OSAH at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; MARGARET HAMMERSIA, in her official capacity as Co

- Dire ctor of the Adult Gerontology Primary Care Nurse Prac ti tioner Specialty Program at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; SHANNON IDZIK, in her official capacity as Associate Dean2 for the DNP Program and Associate Professor of OSAH at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; JANE KIRSCHLING, in her official capacity as Assistant Professor, PPEP and Director of Legal Affairs at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; ANN MECH, in her official capacity as Assistant Professor, PPEP and Director of Legal Affairs at the University of Maryland Schoo l of Nursing; KATHLEEN MICHAEL, in her official capacity as the Chair of the Department of Organizational Systems and Adult Health and Associate Professor of OSAH at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; JACQUELINE MITCHELL, in her official capacit y as Director of Clinical Education, Organizational Systems and Adult Health of the University of Maryland School of Nursing; TRICIA O'NEILL, in her official capacity as Assistant Vice President, Academic Affairs of the University of Maryland; JOSEPH PELLI GRINI, in his official capacity as Associate Professor of Organizational Systems and Adult Health and Director of the Nurse Anesthetist Program at the University of Maryland School of Nursing; PETER ROCK, in his official capacity as Professor and Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine; SHANNON SEIFERT, in her official capacity as Clinical Coordinator for University of Maryland School of Nursing at Medstar Union Memorial Hospital; ROGER WARD, in his officia l capacity as Chief Accountability Officer, President of Operations and Planning, Vice Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Maryland; SUZANNE WOZENSKI, Jointly and Severally , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal s from the United States Distri ct Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 02825

- CCB; 1:19

- cv
- 02826

- CCB )

Submitted : December 28, 2020 Decided: February 9, 2021

Before KING, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Shanell Y. Royal, Appellant Pro Se. Constantine Alexander Hortis, Christopher Bower Lord, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristen Nichole Nesbitt, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN , LLP,3 Baltimore, Maryland; Anthony Joseph Breschi, WARANCH & BROWN, LLC, Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.4 PER CURIAM: Shanell Y. Royal appeals the district court’s order s dismissing her civil actions. To the extent Royal contests the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Defendant Shannon Seifert for failure to effect service, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this decision for the reasons stated by the district

court. Royal v. Univ. of Md. , No. 1:19

- cv
- 02826

- CCB (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2020).
As to the remainder of these consolidated appeals, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because , apart from the service of process issue, Royal ’ s informal brief s do not challenge the bas e s for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order s
. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4t h Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders . 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