Amy McBride v. Warden, No. 18-7362 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7362 AMY MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN; LARRY HOGAN, Governor; STEPHEN MOYER, Defendants - Appellees, and OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00171-RDB) Submitted: January 28, 2019 Decided: February 14, 2019 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Amy McBride, an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institute for Women (“MCI-W”), appeals the district court’s order denying injunctive relief. She also moves this court for injunctive relief, for a stay, and to expedite. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. We review the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2017). We have recognized that “sweeping intervention in the management of state prisons is rarely appropriate when exercising the equitable powers of the federal courts.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 1994). After reviewing the record, we conclude that McBride has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. We deny McBride’s motion for injunctive relief and for a stay, and decline as moot her motion to expedite. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
