Eugenna Taylor v. University of Maryland, No. 12-1827 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1827 EUGENNA AILEEN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE; MARY HAACK; ANNE MECH, Assistant Professor, OS & AH Coordinator, Legal Affairs, SPI; IRMA ROBINS; JEFFREY JOHNSON, Professor, FCH and Director, Office of Global Health; JANET KAPUSTIN; KRISTIN BUSSELL; THOMAS SAWYER; MALINDA ORLIN, Academic Vice President; CONRAD GORDON; GAIL LEMAIRE; JOAN DAVENPORT; TYREE MORRISON; DAVID RAMSEY; WILLIAM E. KIRWAN, Chancellor and/or Executive Officer, University System of Maryland; JOHN DOE(S) OF STATE OF MARYLAND; JOHN DOE(S) OF MARYLAND BOARD OF NURSING; PATRICIA MORTON, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; KATHRYN MONTGOMERY, Assistant Dean for the BSN Program; TOM FARLEY; JANA GOODWIN, a/k/a Jane Goodwin; MELANIE BAZENSKY COFFMAN, a/k/a Melanie Coffman; JANET DAVIDSON ALLAN, University of MD School of Nursing Dean; JOHN DOE(S) OF BLUECROSS BLUE SHIELD, Defendants Appellees, and JOHN DOE(S) OF HOWARD SUSAN GILLETTE, COUNTY COMMUNITY GENERAL HOSPITAL; Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-03008-AW) Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugenna Aileen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Slaff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Eugenna orders dismissing sanctions and to Aileen her amend Taylor complaint the appeals and the denying judgment. record and find no reversible error. district We her have court s motions for reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Univ. Md., No. 8:11-cv-03008-AW (D. Md. May 2, 2012; July 2, 2012). We deny Taylor s motions to amend her informal brief and to extend the time period to obtain counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.