Mario D. Jones v. Samuel Cartenius Hamilton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2086
MARIO D. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL CARTENIUS HAMILTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03180-PX)
Submitted: February 25, 2025 Decided: March 25, 2025
Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario Derrell Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mario Derrell Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying a
motion for a preliminary injunction. Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 232 (4th Cir.
2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). We review such an order for an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 229. A district court abuses its discretion when it bases the denial on an incorrect
legal standard, a misapprehension of the law with respect to the underlying litigation, or
clearly erroneous factual findings. Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184,
188, 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and find the district court
did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Jones v.
Hamilton, No. 8:22-cv-03180-PX (D. Md., Oct. 2, 2024). 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 --