Court Opinion

ID: 9956790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:51.539608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.868164
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1483      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1483

        JULIE GASKINS, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of
        Andrew S. Gaskins,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        EK REAL ESTATE FUND I, LLC; EASYKNOCK, INC.; TVC FUNDING III,
        LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01132-GLR)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julie A. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Laughlin Brown, GRAY REED, Dallas, Texas,
        for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1483      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Julie A. Gaskins appeals the district court’s amended order denying without

        prejudice her emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary

        injunction and dismissing her civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On

        appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir.

        R. 34(b).   Gaskins’ informal brief does not challenge or address the district court’s

        determination that she failed to meet the substantive requirements for a temporary

        restraining order or a preliminary injunction and that it otherwise lacked jurisdiction over

        the complaint due to the binding arbitration agreement. Gaskins therefore has forfeited

        appellate review of these dispositive rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 amended order denying relief on these grounds. ∗

        Gaskins v. EK Real Est. Fund I, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01132-GLR (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2023).

        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

               ∗
                 In her informal brief, Gaskins takes issue with the district court’s determination
        that she failed to meet the procedural requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for obtaining
        a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Because we affirm the district
        court’s unchallenged determination that Gaskins failed to meet the substantive
        requirements for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, we decline to
        address this alternate ground cited by the district court for denying relief.
                                                     2