Court Opinion

ID: 9401061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:42.181271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.634428
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2153      Doc: 27            Filed: 06/08/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-2153

        SHERRIE LYNN SMITH,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

        v.

        TAMMY SUE MARTZ, f/k/a Tammy Sue Keyser,

                     Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-03072-CCB)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                              Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before KING, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Richard E. Schimel, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E SCHIMEL, LLC,
        Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. John M. Quinn, ETHRIDGE, QUINN, KEMP,
        ROWAN & HARTINGER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2153      Doc: 27        Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Peggy Sue Keyser died—and her estate was closed—in 2015. More than six years

        later, Sherrie Lynn Smith filed this suit accusing Tammy Sue Martz of fraud and breach of

        fiduciary duty in Martz’s handling of Keyser’s estate. The district court granted summary

        judgment for Martz, holding Smith’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of

        limitations. Reviewing that judgment de novo, see Warfaa v. Ali, 1 F.4th 289, 293–94 (4th

        Cir. 2021), we affirm. 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

                                                    2