4th Cir.

ELIZABETH FEDYNICH v. LYNCHBURG REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY

March 26, 2026 ·25-2156 ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Elizabeth Fedynich's civil rights complaint, ruling that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that she was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court also upheld the denial of her motion to seal court documents, finding she failed to demonstrate a countervailing interest sufficient to override the public's right of access.

Elizabeth Fedynich, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Virginia tort law against various housing authorities and individuals. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely and denied Fedynich's motion to seal a motion for an extension of time. Fedynich appealed both rulings to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled on equitable grounds and that the documents should remain sealed to protect her interests.

The Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, limited its review to the issues raised in Fedynich's informal brief, noting that under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b), the court cannot consider issues not preserved in that document. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court found no reversible error in the district court's determination that Fedynich was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court cited Edmonson v. Eagle Nat'l Bank to reaffirm the standards for equitable tolling, implying that Fedynich did not meet the necessary criteria to pause the running of the limitations period. On the issue of sealing documents, the court applied the standard from Doe v. Pub. Citizen, which requires a party to show a countervailing interest that heavily outweighs the public interest in access to court records. The court concluded that Fedynich failed to meet this burden, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to seal.

This decision reinforces the strict application of statutes of limitations in civil rights cases within the Fourth Circuit, making it difficult for pro se litigants to extend filing deadlines through equitable tolling arguments. It also clarifies the high bar for sealing court records, requiring a specific showing that a private interest heavily outweighs the public's right to access judicial proceedings. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to maintain the dismissal and the public accessibility of the records.