Todd Giffen v. Warden FMC Rochester

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6406 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6406

TODD MICHAEL GIFFEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FMC ROCHESTER, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-6590

TODD MICHAEL GIFFEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FMC ROCHESTER, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:23-hc-02132-M-RJ)

Submitted: February 24, 2026 Decided: March 27, 2026 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6406 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 24-6406, dismissed, and No. 24-6590, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Michael Giffen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6406 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Since December 2022, Todd Michael Giffen has been civilly committed to the custody of the United States Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. In No. 24-6590, he appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to prosecute. He also challenges the court’s orders denying his motions to appoint counsel and for a stay of his commitment. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Giffen’s pending appellate motions, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

No. 24-6406, DISMISSED; No. 24-6590, AFFIRMED

* In No. 24-6406, Giffen noted an interlocutory appeal from the denial of these motions and certain other case management orders. Because the orders are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We note for clarity, however, that Giffen’s challenges to these orders have been reviewed as part of his appeal in No. 24-6590. See Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2024) (“A party’s notice of appeal of a final order encompasses all orders that merge into that order.” (citation modified)).