Kiya Cunningham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 23-1978
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1978 Doc: 30 Filed: 05/09/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1977

KIYA CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 23-1978

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; NADINE MOONEY; JENNIFER S. JOHNSON, a/k/a Jennifer Peach; TRACY A. TOLAND; DAVID MCDOWELL; CHARLES STOKES, a/k/a Chuck Stokes,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge; Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00528-FDW; 3:22-cv-00094-RJC) USCA4 Appeal: 23-1978 Doc: 30 Filed: 05/09/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Submitted: March 31, 2025 Decided: May 9, 2025

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kiya Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Joseph Dalton, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1978 Doc: 30 Filed: 05/09/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Kiya Cunningham appeals from the district court’s

orders granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motions to strike and for summary judgment,

treating her motion for reconsideration as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

judgment, and denying relief under Rule 59(e) in her civil action for discrimination, a

hostile work environment, retaliation, and interference (No. 23-1977) and from the district

court’s orders granting the motion filed by Wells Fargo and several of its employees to

dismiss Cunningham’s separate civil action for failure to state a claim and denying

Cunningham’s motion for reconsideration pursued under Rule 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

(No. 23-1978).

Appellees have moved to strike Cunningham’s supplemental informal brief as

unauthorized and untimely and, after review of the motion and Cunningham’s response to

it, we grant the motion to strike and deny as moot Appellees’ motion to extend the time for

filing a response to Cunningham’s supplemental informal brief. In the informal briefing

Cunningham properly filed, she contends in appeal No. 23-1977 that the district court erred

in denying her motion to enforce a discovery order. She also challenges the district court’s

rulings striking her response to Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion and granting that

motion. In appeal No. 23-1978, Cunningham challenges the district court’s denial of relief

under Rule 60.

We conclude after review that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

granting Wells Fargo’s motion to strike Cunningham’s response to its summary judgment

motion. See United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 899 F.3d 295, 324 (4th Cir.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1978 Doc: 30 Filed: 05/09/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

2018) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review of district court ruling striking

pleading); Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing “a district

court’s decisions pertaining to the management of its own docket” for abuse of discretion).

Because Cunningham’s briefing does not present developed argument challenging the

bases undergirding the district court’s rulings denying her motion to enforce, granting

summary judgment to Wells Fargo, and denying relief under Rule 60, we conclude that she

has waived appellate review of those rulings. See Just Puppies, Inc. v. Brown, 123 F.4th

652, 660 n.4 (4th Cir. 2024); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316

(4th Cir. 2017).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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