Court Opinion

ID: 9930443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:25.578453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:29.990790
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2219      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2219

        GRAHAM SCHIFF,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General; JOHN MCCARTHY,
        Montgomery County State’s Attorney; NICHOLAS PICERNO, Captain for
        Montgomery County Police; MARCUS JONES, Chief of Montgomery County
        Police; MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-00338-DKC)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lozinsky Shiff, OFFICE OF THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Donna McBride,
        MILLER, MILLER & CANBY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2219         Doc: 14      Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Graham Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for a

        preliminary injunction, for a temporary restraining order, to disqualify counsel, and for

        summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part two motions to dismiss, and

        dismissing certain claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

        U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The

        denial of a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. After reviewing the record,

        we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a

        preliminary injunction because Schiff has not demonstrated his claims are likely to succeed

        on the merits. We therefore deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and affirm this

        portion of the district court’s order. However, the remaining portion of the order is neither

        a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant in

        part Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of

        jurisdiction. 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 IN PART,
                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART

                                                     2