Daundra Grier v. Hud, c/o Attorney General of the United States

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1310
DAUNDRA GRIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUD, c/o Attorney General of the United States; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
ELKTON MARYLAND; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF DALLAS TEXAS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:21-cv-02165-PX)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daundra Grier, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Adam Haven, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN
RILEY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daundra Grier filed suit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”), the Housing Authority of Elkton, Maryland (“EHA”), and the
Housing Authority of Dallas, Texas (“DHA”), asserting civil rights violations and
violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680, allegedly
committed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. On appeal, Grier challenges the district
court’s orders granting HUD’s and EHA’s motions to dismiss and dismissing DHA from
the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the arguments Grier raises in her
informal brief and have found no reversible error. 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 therefore affirm the district court’s orders. See Grier v. HUD, No. 8:21-cv-
02165-PX (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2022; Nov. 14, 2022; Dec. 6, 2023). 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 --