Eugenna Aileen Taylor v. University of Maryland, Baltimore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1827
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-03008-AW)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugenna Aileen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Slaff, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --