Shaunesi DeBerry v. Matthew Fader

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2374 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2374

SHAUNESI YVETTE DEBERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW JOHN FADER, in his official and individual capacities as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Maryland; GREGORY WELLS, in his official and individual capacities as Chief Judge of the Appellate Court of Maryland; DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, in his official and individual capacities as Judge of the Appellate Court of Maryland; ANNE COLT LEITESS, in her official and individual capacities as State’s Attorney for Anne Arundel County; SHIRLEY MARIE WATTS, in her official and individual capacities as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Maryland; RACHEL DOMBROWSKI, in her official and individual capacities as Clerk of the Appellate Court of Maryland; GREGORY HILTON, in his official and individual capacities as Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees.

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

George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:25-cv-03586-GLR)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 26, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2374 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2374 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/26/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Shaunesi Yvette DeBerry appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny DeBerry’s motion for PACER fee exemption and electronic access accommodation. DeBerry v. Fader, No. 1:25-cv-03586-GLR (D. Md., Nov. 7, 2025). 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