BRUNO K. MPOY, Individually and as a Next Friend of T.M. and C.M. v. State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1474
BRUNO K. MPOY, Individually and as a Next Friend of T.M. and C.M.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; MARCY
WAXMAN; RE/MAX REALTY GROUP; FARROKH MOHAMMADI;
MOHAMMADI & HUMAYUN, LLC; C.L.A. TITLE & ESCROW; SHARON T.
DIAMANT; DIAMANT GERSTEIN, LLC; DONTRICE P. HAMILTON; SUSAN
M. BRYANT; COREY RYAN CLIFFORD, In his Personal and Official Capacity;
KEVIN BORGE, In his Personal and Official Capacity; BRAD MORTON, In his
Personal and Official Capacity; RALPH ALOI, In his Personal and Official
Capacity; FRANK D. PRUITT, In his Personal and Official Capacity; JASON
CORDERO, In his Personal and Official Capacity; LENWORTH W. BLACK, In his
Personal and Official Capacity; KATHRYN M. HUFF; CAPTAIN ROBIN LEWIS,
In her Personal and Official Capacity; MADHURI PERERA, In her Personal and
Official Capacity; DENISE ANDERSON, In her Personal and Official Capacity;
CESAR IVAN ELOISA, Code Enforcement; TAMALA ROBINSON, Code
Enforcement,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (8:23-cv-01927-BAH)
Submitted: July 8, 2024 Decided: July 17, 2024
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruno K. Mpoy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Bruno K. Mpoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration of
its order dismissing the State of Maryland as a defendant in his civil action. 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 that Mpoy seeks to appeal is neither
a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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 --