noting we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order
How later courts described this case
- noting we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1408 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1408
GRAHAM HARRY 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: November 21, 2024 Decided: November 25, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lozinsky Shiff, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Diane Feuerherd,
Donna McBride, MILLER, MILLER & CANBY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1408 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Graham Harry Schiff appeals the district court’s order striking Schiff’s amended
complaint and dismissing his civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). We have
reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d
606, 620 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action
for failure to comply with a court order). The district court ordered Schiff to file a more
definite statement in the form of a second amended complaint that clearly linked his
allegations to specific claims and defendants. Schiff’s response to the district court’s order
did not comply with those directions. Accordingly, Rule 12(e) authorized the district court
to strike Schiff’s amended complaint and dismiss the action.
Accordingly, we deny Schiff’s motion for recusal of the judges of this court and
affirm the district court’s order. Schiff v. Brown, No. 8:23-cv-00338-DKC (D. Md.
Apr. 18, 2024). 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
2