UNPUBLISHED

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 ALDRICHMALAPANES, 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 capacity 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-Director of the Adult Gerontology 

Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Specialty Program at the University of Maryland 

School of Nursing; SHANNON IDZIK, in her official capacity as Associate Dean 
2

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 School 

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 capacity 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 PELLIGRINI, 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 official 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.

Appeals from the United States District 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 unpublished 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 orders 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 briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court’s 

disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th 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