Elizabeth Fedynich v. Lynchburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-2156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2156 Doc: 41 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2156

ELIZABETH FEDYNICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LYNCHBURG REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY; JANICE PAYNE-HUBBARD; OMAR LLAMAS; LIDIA VARGAS; BARBARA WOODALL; VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; ANTON SHAW; BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS; JEREMY DURHAM; KAREN KREUTZBERG; MARINA ARRITOLA; DAWN FAGAN; CHANDRA HYACINTH; CENTRAL VIRGINIA HOUSING; BETTY NEWBURY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00049-DJN)

Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 30, 2026

Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Fedynich, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Taylor Monday, GENTRY LOCKE, Roanoke, Virginia; Giovanna Rae Bonafede, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, McLean, Virginia; Robert Matthew Black, Jeremy David Capps, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Daniel USCA4 Appeal: 25-2156 Doc: 41 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Philip Peyton, Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2156 Doc: 41 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Fedynich appeals the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her civil

complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-

3619; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213; the Rehabilitation

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796l; and Virginia tort law. She further challenges the district

court’s denial of her motion to seal a motion for an extension of time. Limiting our review

to the issues raised in the informal brief, we discern no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R.

34(b); 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.”). The district court did not err in finding Fedynich was not entitled to tolling

of the applicable statutes of limitations on equitable grounds. See Edmonson v. Eagle Nat’l

Bank, 922 F.3d 535, 548-50 (4th Cir. 2019) (discussing equitable tolling). Nor did the

district court abuse its discretion in finding Fedynich had not established a “countervailing

interest[]” that “heavily outweigh[ed] the public interests in access” to documents filed in

the proceedings. Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

marks omitted); see also United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 145 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating

standard of review).

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