Mark Marvin v. Casa, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1223
MARK MARVIN,
Appellant,
v.
CASA, INC.; ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT, INC.; MARIBEL,
Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o CASA, Inc.; JUANA,
Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o CASA, Inc.; TRINIDAD
GARCIA, Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o Asylum Seeker
Advocacy Project; MONICA, Individually and as next friend to her future child, c/o
Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project; LIZA, Individually and as next friend to her
future child, c/o Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
and
DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States, c/o
Attorney General of the United States; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, In their official capacity; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES, In their official capacity; SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, In their
official capacity, c/o Office of the General Counsel; DIRECTOR OF UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, In their official
capacity, c/o Office of the Chief Counsel; COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, In their official capacity, c/o Office of the Chief
Counsel; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o Attorney General of the United
States,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah L. Boardman, District Judge. (8:25-cv-00201-DLB)
Submitted: March 31, 2026 Decided: April 30, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Wilfred Mead, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Sharon Swingle, Derek Weiss, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Mark Marvin, a nonparty to the underlying litigation, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order returning—without docketing—his pro se “Notice of Branzburg v. Hayes
Motion,” which the court construed as an unauthorized amicus brief. The court advised
Marvin that he had not sought leave to file an amicus brief nor had he moved to intervene.
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 Marvin 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 --