JULIE GASKINS, Individually v. Ek Real Estate Fund I, LLC; Easyknock, Inc.; Tvc Funding Iii, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1483
JULIE GASKINS, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of
Andrew S. Gaskins,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EK REAL ESTATE FUND I, LLC; EASYKNOCK, INC.; TVC FUNDING III,
LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01132-GLR)
Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024
Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julie A. Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Laughlin Brown, GRAY REED, Dallas, Texas,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Julie A. Gaskins appeals the district court’s amended order denying without
prejudice her emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction and dismissing her civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). Gaskins’ informal brief does not challenge or address the district court’s
determination that she failed to meet the substantive requirements for a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction and that it otherwise lacked jurisdiction over
the complaint due to the binding arbitration agreement. Gaskins therefore has forfeited
appellate review of these dispositive rulings. 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.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended order denying relief on these grounds.∗
Gaskins v. EK Real Est. Fund I, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01132-GLR (D. Md. Apr. 28, 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
∗ In her informal brief, Gaskins takes issue with the district court’s determination
that she failed to meet the procedural requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for obtaining
a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Because we affirm the district
court’s unchallenged determination that Gaskins failed to meet the substantive
requirements for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, we decline to
address this alternate ground cited by the district court for denying relief.

-- 2 of 2 --