USCA4 Appeal: 24-1911 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1911

CHRISTINE RITCHIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAVI, CEDRONE, GRAVER, BOYD & DISIPIO; ELEANOR RITCHIE; FACEBOOK; LINKEDIN; ANDREW PHAN; KATHRYN WADLAND; JEFFREY BARKIN; YARMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAINE MEDICAL CENTER; TAYMIL PARTNERS; MAINE DISTRICT COURT; FREDERICK HOSPITAL; FREDERICK POLICE DEPARTMENT; MEDSTAR ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL; ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SPRING HARBOR HOSPITAL; MARTHA J. KEEN; MICHAEL SCOTT LARGE; DOES 1-100, Defendants - Appellees, and STEPHEN EDWARD MOORE; WILLIAM A. MURPHY, Defendants.

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

Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:23-cv-03115-PX)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1911 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Ritchie, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Eric Alan Shumsky, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jared S. Dvornicky, Brandon K. Wharton, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Caitlin Ann Hill, Kaitlin Dunn Martin, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC, Boston, Massachusetts; Richard Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Kelly Hughes Iverson, Jared Mitchell Green, Christina Ruhl Stringer, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Kevin B. Karpinski, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Mary Elizabeth Kaslick, KASLICK & PRETE, LLC, Frederick, Maryland; Raymond Robert Mulera, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1911 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Christine Ritchie appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Ritchie’s multiple civil claims. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Ritchie’s informal brief, 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Ritchie v. Lavi, Cedrone, Graver, Boyd & Disipio, No. 8:23-cv-03115-PX (D. Md. Aug. 28, 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