Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Kline Development Group, LLC; Kenishca Walizada

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1341
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KLINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC; KENISHCA WALIZADA,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia T. Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00225-PTG-TCB)
Submitted: October 25, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022
Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: James P. Campbell, Matthew L. Clark, CAMPBELL FLANNERY, P.C.,
Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellants. Richard D. Holzheimer, Kang He, Tysons, Virginia,
Brian D. Schmalzbach, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kline Development Group, LLC, and Kenishca Walizada appeal the district court’s
order granting Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC’s (“Columbia”) motion for a preliminary
injunction. We review the district court’s decision to grant injunctive relief for an abuse
of discretion. Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020). If the district court
“applied a correct preliminary injunction standard, made no clearly erroneous findings of
material fact, and demonstrated a firm grasp of the legal principles pertinent to the
underlying dispute,” no abuse of discretion occurred. Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery
Cnty., 722 F.3d 184, 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips
in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Roe, 947 F.3d at 219 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no
reversible error.∗ We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that Columbia demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive
relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
∗ We limit our review to the issues raised in Appellants’ opening brief. See United
States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 685 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that appellant forfeits review
of “an issue not presented fairly in an appellant’s opening appellate brief”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
v. Kline Dev. Grp., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00225-PTG-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2022). 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

-- 3 of 3 --