Traci Guynup v. Travis Sumption
Traci Guynup v. Travis Sumption
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2167 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2167
TRACI M. GUYNUP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLARKE COUNTY SHERIFF CHIEF DEPUTY TRAVIS SUMPTION, in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00086-TTC-RSB)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Traci M. Guynup, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, Brittany Elizabeth Shipley, TIMBERLAKE SMITH, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2167 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Traci M. Guynup appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting summary judgment
to Defendant in Guynup’s
42 U.S.C. § 1983action; (2) denying Guynup’s motions to
reopen case and to recuse the district court judge; (3) denying Guynup’s motions to exclude
evidence, for sanctions, to disqualify/recuse the district court judge, and for a preliminary
injunction; (4) denying Guynup’s motion to add defendants; and (5) denying Guynup’s
motion for sanctions. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in the informal
brief, we find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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 orders. Guynup v. Sumption, No. 5:20-cv-00086-TTC-RSB (W.D. Va.
Sept. 23, 2021; Sept. 24, 2021; Sept. 27, 2021; Oct. 1, 2021; Oct. 14, 2021). We deny
Guynup’s motion to expedite as moot, and we deny Guynup’s motions to reopen, to
remand, to disqualify/recuse the district court judge, to compel, and all other pending
motions. 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished