Tracey Grady v. B. S.
21-6425
| 4th Cir. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Appellant Tracey Terrell Grady, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order that (a) dismissed some—but not all—claims in her amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on 28 U.S.C. § 1915A frivolity review, and (b) denied her request for preliminary injunctive relief.
- The district court also denied (as moot) Grady’s motions to reconsider and refused her requests for appointment of counsel and recusal of the judge.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the portions of the district court’s order dismissing claims and denying the postjudgment motions because those rulings were not final or otherwise appealable.
- The court retained jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
- Applying the preliminary-injunction standards (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) and the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, the Fourth Circuit found no abuse and affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief; the appeal was therefore dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of partial dismissal of claims (28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal) | Grady sought appellate review of the district court’s partial dismissals | Order is not final and not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Appealability of denials of motions (reconsideration, appointment of counsel, recusal) | Grady challenged these denials | These rulings are nonfinal and nonappealable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Denial of preliminary injunction | Grady argued she met PI factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | District court properly applied PI standard and found no basis for relief | Affirmed—no abuse of discretion in denying PI |
| Standard and review approach for preliminary injunction | Grady contended district court erred in applying the law | Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion; facts for clear error; law de novo | Court applied correct standards and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (limits on appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal orders)
- Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2020) (preliminary injunction four-factor framework)
- Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2019) (standards for reviewing preliminary-injunction rulings)
- Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2013) (appellate review for abuse of discretion when correct standard applied and findings not clearly erroneous)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief; plaintiff must make a clear showing)