Amy McBride v. WARDEN; LARRY HOGAN, Governor; STEPHEN MOYER

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7362
AMY MCBRIDE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; LARRY HOGAN, Governor; STEPHEN MOYER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00171-RDB)
Submitted: January 28, 2019 Decided: February 14, 2019
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy McBride, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Amy McBride, an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institute for Women
(“MCI-W”), appeals the district court’s order denying injunctive relief. She also moves
this court for injunctive relief, for a stay, and to expedite.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. We
review the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Di
Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2017). We have recognized that
“sweeping intervention in the management of state prisons is rarely appropriate when
exercising the equitable powers of the federal courts.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266,
269 (4th Cir. 1994).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that McBride has not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of a
preliminary injunction. We deny McBride’s motion for injunctive relief and for a stay,
and decline as moot her motion to expedite. 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

-- 2 of 2 --