Case Name: Cynthia G. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sullivan McGRAW; Jacqueline McGraw; New Life Worship Center, Church Board and Membership, Defendants-Appellees, and The Potomac District of the Assemblies of God, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-01
Citations: 479 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 12-1698
Parties: Cynthia G. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sullivan McGRAW; Jacqueline McGraw; New Life Worship Center, Church Board and Membership, Defendants-Appellees, and The Potomac District of the Assemblies of God, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Cynthia G. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sullivan McGRAW; Jacqueline McGraw; New Life Worship Center, Church Board and Membership, Defendants-Appellees, and The Potomac District of the Assemblies of God, Defendant.
No. 12-1698.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 1, 2012.
Cynthia G. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barry Bach, Kimya B. Thomas, Pessin Katz Law, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia G. Smith appeals the magistrate judge's and district court's various pretrial orders, the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in this civil action, and a subsequent order denying Smith's motions for reconsideration and recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. McGraw, No. 8:10-cv-02310-AW, 2012 WL 603238 (D.Md. Aug. 30, 2011; Oct. 4, 2011; Oct. 7, 2011; Nov. 2, 2011, Feb. 23, 2012 & May 1, 2012). We grant Smith's motions to extend time to file a reply brief, to consolidate appeals, and to file a corrected informal brief, but deny her motion to amend/correct record. 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.