Rifat Shafique v. Equity Residential

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit September 23, 2024

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1575 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 24-1575

Plaintiff - Appellant,

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:24-cv-01392-DLB)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rifat Shafique, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1575 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

Rifat Shafique appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) and denying her subsequent motion for

reconsideration. Shafique also seeks to appeal the court’s letter returning her proposed

filing because the case had since been closed.

Regarding the district court’s dismissal order and its reconsideration order, we have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

orders. Shafique v. Equity Residential, No. 8:24-cv-01392-DLB (D. Md. May 16, 2024;

filed May 20, 2024 & entered May 21, 2024).

Turning to the appeal of the district court’s letter, this court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The court’s letter is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Shafique’s motion for affirmative declaratory relief.

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.