Gracie Wichtendahl Suarez v. Cody Rhodes

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1458 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1458

GRACIE G. WICHTENDAHL SUAREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CODY RHODES, in his capacity as Sheriff of Washington County; WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; MARYLAND STATE POLICE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees.

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

Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02673-JRR)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gracie G. Wichtendahl Suarez, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott White, Assistant Attorney General, Guy Saint Pol Maydieu, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; John Coleman Karpinski, Kevin Bock Karpinski, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1458 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Gracie G. Wichtendahl Suarez appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action. Suarez sued Cody Rhodes in his capacity as Sheriff of Washington County, Maryland, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, the Maryland State Police, and the State of Maryland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994. The district court dismissed Suarez’s claims against the Maryland State Police and the State of Maryland for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, against the Washington County Sheriff’s Office for failure to state a claim, and against Rhodes for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim. The court, however, afforded Suarez the opportunity to file an amended complaint suing Rhodes in his individual capacity. Suarez declined to amend her complaint, and the district court dismissed the action.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Suarez’s motions to strike response briefs, to impose sanctions, to extend the filing time for a reply brief, and for costs, deny as moot her motion to proceed pro se, and affirm the district court’s orders. Suarez v. Rhodes, No. 1:23-cv-02673-JRR (D. Md. filed Feb. 4, 2025, entered Feb. 5, 2025 & Apr. 18, 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