Martin Akerman v. Hamel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-2186
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2186 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2186

MARTIN AKERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ATTORNEY HAMEL, Fairfax County District Attorney; UNKNOWN STATE OFFICERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-01284-RDA-LRV)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Akerman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2186 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Martin Akerman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice, denying his request

for a preliminary injunction, denying reconsideration, and granting Akerman an

opportunity to file an amended complaint. 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). With respect to the dismissal of Akerman’s § 1983 claims, the district court

explicitly granted Akerman leave to file an amended complaint. Therefore, the orders were

not final orders. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (holding when a

district court dismisses an action but provides leave to amend, the order is not a final

appealable order). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Akerman’s

claims.

The district court’s denial of Akerman’s request for a preliminary injunction,

however, is an appealable interlocutory decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). “We review

the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.” Roe v.

Dep’t of Def., 947 F,3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Akerman’s request for an injunction.

Accordingly, we deny Akerman’s motion to supplement the record, affirm the

denial of a preliminary injunction, and dismiss the remainder of the appeal. We dispense

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2186 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/24/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART