Jerome Segal v. MD State Board of Elections, No. 18-2086 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2086 JEROME SEGAL; PETER ROEMER; MICHAEL HODGE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; LINDA LAMONE, State Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02731-GJH) Submitted: October 5, 2018 Decided: October 11, 2018 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Segal, Peter Roemer, Michael Hodge, Appellants Pro Se. Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Andrea William Trento, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Segal, Peter Roemer, and Michael Hodge appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction, in which they sought to have Segal placed on the ballot in Maryland’s upcoming general election. We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 612 F.3d 752, 756-60 (4th Cir. 2010) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to South Carolina’s sore-loser statute); Backus v. Spears, 677 F.2d 397, 399-400 (4th Cir. 1982) (same). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Segal v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:18-cv-02731-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2018). 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.