USCA4 Appeal: 24-1698 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1698

WILLIAM STRASBURG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TROOPER GREGORY WILSON, Maryland State Police Trooper; SGT. FORRESTER, Maryland State Police Sergeant; UNKNOWN RESPONSIBLE PARTY, Prosecutor for Baltimore County District Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01604-BAH)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1698 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Strasburg appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his

complaint raising various claims related to pending state charges against him for traffic

violations. When his informal brief is liberally construed, Strasburg argues that the district

court erred by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Younger v. Harris,

(1971).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by abstaining from ruling on Strasburg’s claims. See Air Evac EMS, Inc. v.

McVey,

, 95 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review). However, “when a

party seeks not only injunctive and declaratory relief” on claims for which Younger

abstention is appropriate, “but money damages as well, we have held that the appropriate

course is to abstain by staying proceedings on monetary as well as injunctive and

declaratory claims.” Adams Outdoor Advert. Ltd. P’ship v. Beaufort County,

(4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Strasburg sought

both damages and injunctive relief on his claims, the district should not have dismissed the

complaint. Rather, it should have stayed the action pending the completion of the state

court proceedings.

We therefore vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2