UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1046

EALISE CRUMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MCDONALD’S CORPORATION; RAOUL ALVAREZ, trading as McDonald’s (Store 1840), as an individual and owner of Ram Foods, Inc., a corporation and the franchise McDonald’s; RAM FOODS, INC., trading as McDonald’s (Store 1840), a corporation; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, a state agency; D. MICHAEL LYLES, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director of Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission, a Civil Rights Agency for the county; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, a body corporate and politic, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge, and Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:15-cv-01719-CBD)

Submitted: July 12, 2021 Decided: July 30, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ealise Crumb, Appellant Pro Se. D. Stephenson Schwinn, JORDAN, COYNE & SAVITS, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ealise Crumb appeals a variety of orders pertaining to her civil lawsuit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Crumb’s motion to exceed page limitations and affirm. Crumb v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 8:15-cv-01719 (D. Md., Feb. 26, 2016; Nov. 18, 2016; Apr. 27, 2017; June 20, 2017; Dec. 6, 2017; Oct.

21, 2019; Nov. 12, 2019; Nov. 21, 2019; Nov. 22, 2019; Dec. 16, 2019). * 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

* To the extent Crumb seeks to appeal additional orders she lists only in her informal brief, she did not identify those orders in her notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). And, in any event, the district court’s rulings on those preliminary matters do not call into question the validity of its disposition of Crumb’s action.