United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Peter Agbro and Deidra Agbro seek a Temporary Restraining
Order or Preliminary Injunction enjoining Defendants from
selling the property at issue in their pro se
Complaint, 2202 Dhow Court, Bowie, Maryland 20721 (the
Property). ECF No. 26.
purpose of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a
preliminary injunction is to “protect the status quo
and to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a
lawsuit, ultimately to preserve the court's ability to
render a meaningful judgment on the merits.” In
re Microsoft Carp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2003). The grant of a TRO or a preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled
to such relief.” Dewhurst v. Cnty. Aluminum
Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir.2011) (quoting
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555
U.S. 7, 22 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,
the burden placed upon Plaintiff to state a claim for a TRO
is high. The Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit recognize
four requirements that a party must show to be granted a TRO
or preliminary injunction:
(1) there is a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there
is a likelihood the movant will suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in movant's favor; and (4) the injunction
is in the public interest.
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election
Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir.2009) (citing
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20); see also Dewhurst,
649 F.3d at 290 (reaffirming the four requirements). All four
of these requirements must be met in order for a TRO or
preliminary injunction to be granted. See Dewhurst,
649 F.3d at 290.
have not met this high burden, however, because they fail to
show there is a likelihood of success on the merits given
that their Complaint likely does not state a claim for
relief. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a
Complaint shall contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” and “each allegation must be simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
Further, to state a claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, a complaint, relying on only well-pled factual
allegations, must state at least a “plausible claim for
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). The “mere recital of elements of a cause of
action, supported only by conclusory statements, is not
sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435,
439 (4th Cir. 2012).
se complaints must be construed liberally and must be
“held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, “[p]rinciples requiring
generous construction of pro se complaints are not .
. . without limits.” Beauciett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Courts are
not required to “conjure up questions never squarely
presented to them” nor “construct full blown
claims from sentence fragments.” Id.
of a concise statement of facts as to the underlying causes
of action, Plaintiffs' allegations are difficult to
understand, contained in various documents attached to the
Complaint, and replete with legal statements and conclusions.
ECF No. 1-3. The Complaint appears to rely on a
misinterpretation of Maryland law when it alleges that a
holder of a Note indorsed in blank, accompanied by a properly
record Deed of Trust lacks standing to enforce the Note and
Deed of Trust. Id. at ¶ 21. This is incorrect.
See Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Brock, 430 Md.
714, 728, 63 A.3d 40, 48 (2013). Additionally, documents that
are integral to the Complaint demonstrate that Plaintiffs do
not own the Property at issue; instead the Property appears
to be owned by the “Agbro Family Trust.” ECF No.
21-1. As a result, Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the
merits because they are not the proper plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have failed to provide a short and plain statement
of their claims showing that they are the proper Plaintiff
and are entitled to relief, Plaintiffs are not likely to
succeed on the merits of their claims. Thus, Plaintiffs'
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary
Injunction is denied.
separate Order shall issue.
 Although Defendant Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) has filed a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim, that motion is not yet
ripe, and ...