Raheem Muhammad v. Rosemary Williamson-Crawl, No. 09-1091 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1091 RAHEEM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ROSEMARY WILLIAMSON-CRAWL; ANGELA BONSU; MICHELLE REED; JACK MCSHEA; JACK MCSHEA, III; TIMOTHY MCSHEA; JOEL TORRES; CANDICE HEBRON; KARIND GARCIA; YANKEE MUKADI; ISIAH LEGGET; ANNIE ALSTON; LILLIAN DURHAM; JERRY ROBINSON; JOY FLOOD; GAIL WILLISON; JAMIE B. MILLER, JR.; MICHAEL KATUR; JEAN BANKS; ROBERTO PINERO; NORMAN COHEN; NORMAN M. DREYFUSS; PAMELA LINDSTROM; SALLY ROMAN; ANTONIA ADAMS; JAMES WATKINS; DONNA JACKSON; WANDA SEYMORE; ARIE ROBINSON; MARSHA SMITH; ERIC AXELROD; TIMOTHY BECKETT; MONICA BLOUNT-HART; MARILYN FOX; JACQUELINE GHUNAIM; LATONYA HAMILTON; MARISKA MENDS; FRAN JAMIESON-UNGER; KAREN JEFFRIES; LECIA STEIN; JAMES L. STOWE; ODESSA SHANNON; DAVID E. HUGHLEY; RICHARD Y. NELSON, JR.; JOSEPH GILOLEY; MICHAEL T. DENNEY; JANE BLACKWELL; MCSHEA MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND; MICHAEL CONROY; STEPHEN A. JOHNSON; PATRICIA L. MITCHELL; GARY LEWIS CRAWFORD; BRIAN GOOK-HYUN KIM; JAMES BERNARD SARSFIELD; GARY G. EVERNGA; CHERYL ANN MCCALLY; EUGENE WOLF; BARRY HAMILTON; WILLIAM SIMMONS; CAROLYN BEALE; TIWANA RICHARDSON; RI SHERYLL; KEVIN BERNARD MCPARLAND; DOUGLAS M. BREGMAN; LAURENCE H. BERBERT; TIMOTHY PETER SCHWARTZ; MARK ANDREW GILDAY; LAW OFFICES OF BREGMAN, BERBERT, SCHWARTZ AND GILDAY; BENJAMIN CLYBURN, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:08-cv-02971-DKC) Submitted: November 6, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raheem Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Raheem Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, This court 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). v. The order Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.