Matthew Alward v. Warden Eric Rokosky

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6274
MATTHEW ALWARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ERIC ROKOSKY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:24-cv-03091-JRR)
Submitted: May 13, 2025 Decided: June 30, 2025
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Alward, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Robert Gayle, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Alward, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order granting
Respondent’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, and denying
relief on Alward’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged a prison disciplinary
hearing. On appeal, Alward also moves for various forms of injunctive relief and to
suspend his BOP transfer pending appeal.
To obtain injunctive relief while an appeal is pending, the movant must establish:
(1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) he will be irreparably injured
absent the requested relief; (3) issuance of injunctive relief will not substantially harm the
other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) the public interest will be served by
granting injunctive relief. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). A party must
ordinarily first move in the district court for injunctive relief, see Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1),
or show either that moving first in the district court would be impracticable, or that the
district court has denied his motion, Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A).
It does not appear that Alward first filed his motions in the district court or state that
it would be impracticable to do so. Regardless, the factual relationship between the claims
made in Alward’s motions and the claims underlying his § 2241 petition is unclear.
Furthermore, Alward largely fails to substantiate the allegations made in his motions,
provide details regarding the factual bases for his claims, or clarify what relief he seeks.
Because Alward has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks, we deny
his pending motions.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s order
denying relief on Alward’s § 2241 petition. We therefore affirm the court’s order.
Alward v. Rokosky, No. 1:24-cv-03091-JRR (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2025). 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

-- 3 of 3 --