USCA4 Appeal: 25-6274 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6274

MATTHEW ALWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ERIC ROKOSKY, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:24-cv-03091-JRR)

Submitted: May 13, 2025 Decided: June 30, 2025

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Alward, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Robert Gayle, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6274 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Matthew Alward, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, and denying relief on Alward’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged a prison disciplinary hearing. On appeal, Alward also moves for various forms of injunctive relief and to suspend his BOP transfer pending appeal.

To obtain injunctive relief while an appeal is pending, the movant must establish: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) he will be irreparably injured absent the requested relief; (3) issuance of injunctive relief will not substantially harm the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) the public interest will be served by granting injunctive relief. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). A party must ordinarily first move in the district court for injunctive relief, see Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1), or show either that moving first in the district court would be impracticable, or that the district court has denied his motion, Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A).

It does not appear that Alward first filed his motions in the district court or state that it would be impracticable to do so. Regardless, the factual relationship between the claims made in Alward’s motions and the claims underlying his § 2241 petition is unclear.

Furthermore, Alward largely fails to substantiate the allegations made in his motions, provide details regarding the factual bases for his claims, or clarify what relief he seeks.

Because Alward has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks, we deny his pending motions.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6274 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s order denying relief on Alward’s § 2241 petition. We therefore affirm the court’s order.

Alward v. Rokosky, No. 1:24-cv-03091-JRR (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2025). 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