Christine Ritchie v. Lavi, Cedrone, Graver, Boyd & Disipio

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1911
CHRISTINE RITCHIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LAVI, CEDRONE, GRAVER, BOYD & DISIPIO; ELEANOR RITCHIE;
FACEBOOK; LINKEDIN; ANDREW PHAN; KATHRYN WADLAND;
JEFFREY BARKIN; YARMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAINE MEDICAL
CENTER; TAYMIL PARTNERS; MAINE DISTRICT COURT; FREDERICK
HOSPITAL; FREDERICK POLICE DEPARTMENT; MEDSTAR ST. MARY’S
HOSPITAL; ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SPRING HARBOR
HOSPITAL; MARTHA J. KEEN; MICHAEL SCOTT LARGE; DOES 1-100,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
STEPHEN EDWARD MOORE; WILLIAM A. MURPHY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:23-cv-03115-PX)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christine Ritchie, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC,
Hanover, Maryland; Eric Alan Shumsky, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Jared S. Dvornicky, Brandon K. Wharton, GALLAGHER EVELIUS
& JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Caitlin Ann Hill, Kaitlin Dunn Martin, MINTZ,
LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC, Boston, Massachusetts; Richard
Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Kelly Hughes Iverson,
Jared Mitchell Green, Christina Ruhl Stringer, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin B. Karpinski, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS & KARP,
PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Mary Elizabeth Kaslick, KASLICK & PRETE, LLC, Frederick,
Maryland; Raymond Robert Mulera, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST,
Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Christine Ritchie appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to
dismiss Ritchie’s multiple civil claims. Limiting our review of the record to the issues
raised in Ritchie’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”), we find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Ritchie v. Lavi, Cedrone, Graver,
Boyd & Disipio, No. 8:23-cv-03115-PX (D. Md. Aug. 28, 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 --