Court Opinion

ID: 9893122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:54.708407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:52.216436
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1222    Doc: 26        Filed: 10/24/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                            No. 23-1222

        OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,

                          Plaintiff - Appellee,

                   v.

        KAMAL MUSTAFA,

                          Defendant - Appellant,

                   and

        SIDIKATU RAJI; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Maryland Limited
        Liability Company; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, an Illinois Limited
        Liability Company; NDF1, LLC,

                          Defendants.

                                            No. 23-1223

        OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,

                          Plaintiff - Appellee,

                   v.

        SIDIKATU RAJI,

                          Defendant - Appellant,

                   and
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1222      Doc: 26         Filed: 10/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        KAMAL MUSTAFA; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Maryland
        Limited Liability Company; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, an Illinois
        Limited Liability Company; NDF1, LLC,

                            Defendants.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01623-BPG)

        Submitted: October 16, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kamal Mustafa, Sidikatu Raji, Appellants Pro Se. Timothy McDevitt Hurley, NELSON
        MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1222       Doc: 26          Filed: 10/24/2023   Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, Kamal Mustafa and Sidikatu Raji seek

        review of the district court’s order denying Mustafa’s motion to dismiss, denying his

        motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction imposed by the court, and granting Plaintiff,

        Omaha Property Manager, LLC’s motion for contempt and for sanctions. We affirm the

        district court’s order denying the motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the appeals

        as to the remaining issues.

               Before addressing the merits of these appeals, we first must assure that we have

        jurisdiction. Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018). An order “refusing

        to dissolve or modify [an] injunction[]” is an immediately appealable interlocutory order.

        28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dissolve a

        preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, reviewing the district court’s factual

        findings underlying its decision for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See Fed.

        Trade Comm’n v. Simple Health Plans LLC, 58 F.4th 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2023);

        Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). With these

        standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court

        appropriately denied the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we

        affirm this portion of the district court’s order.

               To the extent that Mustafa and Raji seek to challenge the denial of Mustafa’s motion

        to dismiss, we lack jurisdiction to review that portion of the district court’s order. 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.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1222        Doc: 26         Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s denial of

        Mustafa’s motion to dismiss is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

        collateral order. See Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013). We

        therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeals from this portion of the district court’s

        order.

                 We also lack jurisdiction to review the portion of the district court’s order finding

        Defendants in contempt and imposing sanctions. A civil contempt sanction is not an

        immediately appealable order. United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010);

        see Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of Am., 683 F.2d 827, 830

        n.3 (4th Cir. 1982). We therefore dismiss the appeals to the extent Mustafa and Raji

        challenge the civil contempt findings.

                 Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying Mustafa’s

        motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, and we dismiss the appeals as to the

        remaining portions of the district court’s order. 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

                                                       4