Martin Akerman v. ATTORNEY HAMEL, Fairfax County District Attorney; UNKNOWN STATE OFFICERS

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --