Wallace Wormack; Lakeisha Jones; Carolyn Marshall v. Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1061
WALLACE WORMACK; LAKEISHA JONES; CAROLYN MARSHALL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CAESARS BALTIMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CBAC GAMING, LLC; CBAC BORROWER, LLC; CVPR GAMING
HOLDINGS, LLC; PRT TWO, LLC; CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
CBAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS BALTIMORE INVESTMENT
COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; CAESARS
LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Baltimore Casino; STRON-MD
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ROCK GAMING, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT IP, LLC; CR BALTIMORE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01108-SAG)
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, Carolyn Marshall, Appellants Pro Se. Robert L. Hebb,
Richard Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, and Carolyn Marshall (collectively,
“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s (a) motion in limine to
preclude their expert witness testimony; and (b) motion for summary judgment in
Appellants’ removed civil action alleging negligence/premises liability claims arising
under Maryland law. We confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
rationale for granting the motion in limine, they have forfeited appellate review of this
portion of the court’s order. See 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.”). As to the grant of summary judgment, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. Wormack v. Caesars Balt. Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01108-SAG (D. Md. Jan.
2, 2024).
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

-- 3 of 3 --