Chris deLeon v. Margaret Fox

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2095 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2095

CHRIS DELEON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARGARET FOX; OFFICER CHARLES PYLES, #3228 in his individual and official capacities; OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, in his individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE 3, in his individual and official capacities; JUDGE KATHLEEN DUMAIS, in her individual and official capacities; JUDGE ERIC J. NEE, in his individual and official capacities; JUDGE JENNIFER FAIRFAX, in her individual and official capacities; JUDGE AILEEN ELIZABETH OLIVER, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees.

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

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:25-cv-00080-LKG)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris deLeon, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Cox, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Erin Jeanne Ashbarry, Kristen Joanne Nunley, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for USCA4 Appeal: 25-2095 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2095 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Chris DeLeon seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the judicial Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims against them, granting Defendant Officer Pyles’s motion to quash service, denying DeLeon’s motion for default judgment, and directing DeLeon to properly serve Defendant Pyles as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).

Defendant-Appellee Pyles moves to dismiss DeLeon’s appeal as interlocutory. 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 order DeLeon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED