Lindsay Sikes, Jr. v. Carrie Ward, No. 18-1984 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1984 LINDSAY W. SIKES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARRIE M. WARD, Substitute Trustee; HOWARD BIERMAN, Substitute Trustee; JACOB GEESING, Esq.; PRIMA LELE, Esq.; TAYYABA C. MONOTO, Esq.; JOSHUA COLEMAN, Esq.; RICHARD R. GOLDSMITH, JR., Esq.; LUDEEN MCCARTNEY-GREEN, Esq.; BRIAN E. FROST, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04108-TDC) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lindsay W. Sikes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lindsay W. Sikes, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his amended civil complaint and denying his postjudgment motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sikes’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive procedural rulings in the order dismissing the amended complaint, Sikes has forfeited appellate review of that 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. Although Sikes has properly challenged the court’s order denying his postjudgment motions, we find no reversible error and affirm. Sikes v. Ward, No. 1:16-cv-04108-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2018). We deny as moot Sikes’ motion for a stay pending appeal. 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.