The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1887 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1887
ALLISON SYDNEY BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Individually and in their official capacity;
ELIZABETH WALSH, Individually and in their official capacity; ADRIENNE
DAVIS, Individually and in their official capacity; CARRIE BURNS, Individually
and in their official capacity; RUSSELL OSGOOD, Individually and in their official
capacity; ROBERT WILD, Individually and in their official capacity; DARRELL
HUDSON, Individually and in their official capacity; DEANNA WENDLER-
MODDE, Individually and in their official capacity; NICOLE GORE, Individually
and in their official capacity; PEGGIE SMITH, Individually and in their official
capacity; MARK KAMIMURA-JIMENEZ, Individually and in their official
capacity; ELIZABETH KATZ, Individually and in their official capacity; ANGELA
SMITH, Individually and in their official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:24-cv-03198-TDC)
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1887 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 3
Allison Sydney Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alicia Marie Swartz Pitts, SAUL EWING LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1887 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Allison Sydney Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil
complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s second motion to amend the
caption and affirm the district court’s order. Brown v. The Wash. Univ., No. 8:24-cv-
03198-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 1 & 12, 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
3