Mario Jones v. Samuel Hamilton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-2086
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2086 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2086

MARIO D. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMUEL CARTENIUS HAMILTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03180-PX)

Submitted: February 25, 2025 Decided: March 25, 2025

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Derrell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2086 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Derrell Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying a

motion for a preliminary injunction. Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 232 (4th Cir.

2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). We review such an order for an abuse of discretion.

Id. at 229. A district court abuses its discretion when it bases the denial on an incorrect

legal standard, a misapprehension of the law with respect to the underlying litigation, or

clearly erroneous factual findings. Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184,

188, 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and find the district court

did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Jones v.

Hamilton, No. 8:22-cv-03180-PX (D. Md., Oct. 2, 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