Starsha Sewell v. Strayer University, No. 18-1096 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1096 STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STRAYER UNIVERSITY; ROBERT SILBERMAN; KARL MCDONNELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00159-PWG) Submitted: May 15, 2018 Decided: May 17, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order striking her motion for reconsideration of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and directing that the motion for reconsideration be stricken from the district court’s docket. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Sewell has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.