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

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1575

RIFAT SHAFIQUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM: 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART