Daundra Grier v. HUD, No. 23-1310 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1310 DAUNDRA GRIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUD, c/o Attorney General of the United States; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ELKTON MARYLAND; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF DALLAS TEXAS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:21-cv-02165-PX) Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daundra Grier, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Adam Haven, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daundra Grier filed suit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the Housing Authority of Elkton, Maryland (“EHA”), and the Housing Authority of Dallas, Texas (“DHA”), asserting civil rights violations and violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680, allegedly committed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. On appeal, Grier challenges the district court’s orders granting HUD’s and EHA’s motions to dismiss and dismissing DHA from the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the arguments Grier raises in her informal brief and have found no reversible error. 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 therefore affirm the district court’s orders. See Grier v. HUD, No. 8:21-cv02165-PX (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2022; Nov. 14, 2022; Dec. 6, 2023). 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.