Gracie G. Wichtendahl Suarez v. Cody Rhodes, in his capacity as Sheriff of Washington County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1458
GRACIE G. WICHTENDAHL SUAREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CODY RHODES, in his capacity as Sheriff of Washington County; WASHINGTON
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; MARYLAND STATE POLICE; STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02673-JRR)
Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gracie G. Wichtendahl Suarez, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott White, Assistant Attorney
General, Guy Saint Pol Maydieu, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; John Coleman Karpinski, Kevin Bock Karpinski,
KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gracie G. Wichtendahl Suarez appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil
action. Suarez sued Cody Rhodes in his capacity as Sheriff of Washington County,
Maryland, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, the Maryland State Police, and the
State of Maryland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Driver’s
Privacy Protection Act of 1994. The district court dismissed Suarez’s claims against the
Maryland State Police and the State of Maryland for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign
immunity, against the Washington County Sheriff’s Office for failure to state a claim, and
against Rhodes for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and failure to state a
claim. The court, however, afforded Suarez the opportunity to file an amended complaint
suing Rhodes in his individual capacity. Suarez declined to amend her complaint, and the
district court dismissed the action.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
Suarez’s motions to strike response briefs, to impose sanctions, to extend the filing time
for a reply brief, and for costs, deny as moot her motion to proceed pro se, and affirm the
district court’s orders. Suarez v. Rhodes, No. 1:23-cv-02673-JRR (D. Md. filed Feb. 4,
2025, entered Feb. 5, 2025 & Apr. 18, 2025). 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 of 2 --