USCA4 Appeal: 24-1408 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1408

GRAHAM HARRY SCHIFF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General; JOHN MCCARTHY, Montgomery County State’s Attorney; NICHOLAS PICERNO, Captain for Montgomery County Police; MARCUS JONES, Chief of Montgomery County Police; MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-00338-DKC)

Submitted: November 21, 2024 Decided: November 25, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lozinsky Shiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Diane Feuerherd, Donna McBride, MILLER, MILLER & CANBY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1408 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Graham Harry Schiff appeals the district court’s order striking Schiff’s amended

complaint and dismissing his civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). We have

reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. See Attkisson v. Holder,

(4th Cir. 2019) (noting we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action

for failure to comply with a court order). The district court ordered Schiff to file a more

definite statement in the form of a second amended complaint that clearly linked his

allegations to specific claims and defendants. Schiff’s response to the district court’s order

did not comply with those directions. Accordingly, Rule 12(e) authorized the district court

to strike Schiff’s amended complaint and dismiss the action.

Accordingly, we deny Schiff’s motion for recusal of the judges of this court and

affirm the district court’s order. Schiff v. Brown, No. 8:23-cv-00338-DKC (D. Md.

Apr. 18, 2024). 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