Case Name: Eugenna Aileen TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, Baltimore; Mary Haack; Anne Mech, Assistant Professor, OS & AH Coordinator, Legal Affairs, SPI; Irma Robins; Jeffrey Johnson, Professor, FCH and Director, Office of Global Health; Janet Kapustin; Kristin Bussell; Thomas Sawyer; Malinda Orlin, Academic Vice President; Conrad Gordon; Gail Lemaire; Joan Davenport; Tyree Morrison; David Ramsey; William E. Kirwan, Chancellor and/or Executive Officer, University System of Maryland; John Doe(s) of State of Maryland; John Doe(s) of Maryland Board of Nursing; Patricia Morton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Kathryn Montgomery, Assistant Dean for the BSN Program; Tom Farley; Jana Goodwin, a/k/a Jane Goodwin; Melanie Bazensky Coffman, a/k/a Melanie Coffman; Janet Davidson Allan, University of MD School of Nursing Dean; John Doe(s) of Bluecross Blue Shield, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe(s) of Howard County Community General Hospital; Susan Gillette, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 12-1827
Parties: Eugenna Aileen TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, Baltimore; Mary Haack; Anne Mech, Assistant Professor, OS & AH Coordinator, Legal Affairs, SPI; Irma Robins; Jeffrey Johnson, Professor, FCH and Director, Office of Global Health; Janet Kapustin; Kristin Bussell; Thomas Sawyer; Malinda Orlin, Academic Vice President; Conrad Gordon; Gail Lemaire; Joan Davenport; Tyree Morrison; David Ramsey; William E. Kirwan, Chancellor and/or Executive Officer, University System of Maryland; John Doe(s) of State of Maryland; John Doe(s) of Maryland Board of Nursing; Patricia Morton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Kathryn Montgomery, Assistant Dean for the BSN Program; Tom Farley; Jana Goodwin, a/k/a Jane Goodwin; Melanie Bazensky Coffman, a/k/a Melanie Coffman; Janet Davidson Allan, University of MD School of Nursing Dean; John Doe(s) of Bluecross Blue Shield, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe(s) of Howard County Community General Hospital; Susan Gillette, Defendants.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Eugenna Aileen TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, Baltimore; Mary Haack; Anne Mech, Assistant Professor, OS & AH Coordinator, Legal Affairs, SPI; Irma Robins; Jeffrey Johnson, Professor, FCH and Director, Office of Global Health; Janet Kapustin; Kristin Bussell; Thomas Sawyer; Malinda Orlin, Academic Vice President; Conrad Gordon; Gail Lemaire; Joan Davenport; Tyree Morrison; David Ramsey; William E. Kirwan, Chancellor and/or Executive Officer, University System of Maryland; John Doe(s) of State of Maryland; John Doe(s) of Maryland Board of Nursing; Patricia Morton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Kathryn Montgomery, Assistant Dean for the BSN Program; Tom Farley; Jana Goodwin, a/k/a Jane Goodwin; Melanie Bazensky Coffman, a/k/a Melanie Coffman; Janet Davidson Allan, University of MD School of Nursing Dean; John Doe(s) of Bluecross Blue Shield, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe(s) of Howard County Community General Hospital; Susan Gillette, Defendants.
No. 12-1827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 15, 2012.
Eugenna Aileen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Slaff, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugenna Aileen Taylor appeals the district court's orders dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for sanctions and to amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Univ. Md., No. 8:11-cv-03008-AW (D. Md. May 2, 2012; July 2, 2012). We deny Taylor's motions to amend her informal brief and to extend the time period to obtain counsel. We 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.