Amanda Norris v. Safeguard Properties

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1736 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1736 AMANDA NORRIS; JOSEPH NORRIS, III, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES; PNC BANK, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03315-ELH) Submitted: March 6, 2025 Decided: April 10, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amanda Norris, Joseph Norris, III, Appellants Pro Se. Matthew D. Berkowitz, Kelsey Blair Williams, CARR MALONEY, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Safeguard Properties. Daniel J. Tobin, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee PNC Bank, N.A. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1736 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Amanda Norris and Joseph Norris, III (“Plaintiffs”), appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of PNC Bank, N.A., and Safeguard Properties following a jury trial on Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, trespass, and invasion of privacy. Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we grant Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed the length limitations for informal briefs. With respect to Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the filing time for their informal brief and to request a transcript at government expense, we grant that motion in part as to Plaintiffs’ request to extend the filing time and deny it in part as to Plaintiffs’ request for a transcript. In addition, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Plaintiffs’ remaining pending motions, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. Norris v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 1:20-cv-03315-ELH (D. Md. June 29, 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