Chris Deleon v. Margaret Fox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2095
CHRIS DELEON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARGARET FOX; OFFICER CHARLES PYLES, #3228 in his individual and
official capacities; OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, in his individual and official capacities;
JOHN DOE 3, in his individual and official capacities; JUDGE KATHLEEN
DUMAIS, in her individual and official capacities; JUDGE ERIC J. NEE, in his
individual and official capacities; JUDGE JENNIFER FAIRFAX, in her individual
and official capacities; JUDGE AILEEN ELIZABETH OLIVER, in her individual
and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:25-cv-00080-LKG)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chris deLeon, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Cox, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Erin Jeanne Ashbarry, Kristen
Joanne Nunley, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Chris DeLeon seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the judicial
Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims against them, granting Defendant Officer Pyles’s
motion to quash service, denying DeLeon’s motion for default judgment, and directing
DeLeon to properly serve Defendant Pyles as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).
Defendant-Appellee Pyles moves to dismiss DeLeon’s appeal as interlocutory. 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 order DeLeon seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the
motion to dismiss and dismiss 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --