Court Opinion

ID: 9910664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 21:00:35.559568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:45.358470
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1884      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1884

        FARESHA SIMS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION; LISA
        ROWEN; LINDA GOETZ; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL
        CENTER, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00295-CCB)

        Submitted: November 13, 2023                                Decided: December 15, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Faresha Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Jocelyn Renee Cuttino, Grace Ellen Speights, MORGAN
        LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Vishal Hemchandra Shah, SHAH
        LITIGATION, PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1884      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Faresha Sims appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants summary

        judgment and denying Sims’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. ∗ We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Sims’ motions to

        amend her informal brief and exceed the length limitations and affirm. Sims v. Univ. of

        Md. Med. Sys. Corp., No. 1:19-cv-00295-CCB (D. Md. June 23, 2022). 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

               ∗
                 To the extent Sims seeks to challenge the postjudgment orders denying her recusal
        motion, she did not note an appeal of those orders, nor did she file an informal brief within
        the applicable appeal period that we can construe as a notice of appeal. Accordingly, those
        orders are not before us.

                                                     2