USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1061

WALLACE WORMACK; LAKEISHA JONES; CAROLYN MARSHALL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CAESARS BALTIMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and CBAC GAMING, LLC; CBAC BORROWER, LLC; CVPR GAMING HOLDINGS, LLC; PRT TWO, LLC; CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; CBAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS BALTIMORE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; CAESARS LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Baltimore Casino; STRON-MD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ROCK GAMING, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT IP, LLC; CR BALTIMORE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants.

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

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01108-SAG)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, Carolyn Marshall, Appellants Pro Se. Robert L. Hebb, Richard Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, and Carolyn Marshall (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s (a) motion in limine to preclude their expert witness testimony; and (b) motion for summary judgment in Appellants’ removed civil action alleging negligence/premises liability claims arising under Maryland law. We confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s rationale for granting the motion in limine, they have forfeited appellate review of this portion of the court’s order. See 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.”). As to the grant of summary judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Wormack v. Caesars Balt. Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01108-SAG (D. Md. Jan.

2, 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