The opinion
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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