Opinion

Denrick Eric Brown v. Penn, Correctional Officer Anderson, Correctional Officer

  • 966 F.2d 1441
  • 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21220
  • 1992 WL 119872
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jun 4, 1992
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.0%

The opinion

966 F.2d 1441

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Denrick Eric BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PENN, Correctional Officer; Anderson, Correctional Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6320.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 30, 1992

Decided: June 4, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-91-1341-AM)

Denrick Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Denrick Eric Brown appeals from the district court's order denying his Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction.

2

We dismiss the appeal of the denial of a temporary restraining order because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.s 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order denying a temporary restraining order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal of this portion of the district court's order as interlocutory.

3

The denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) (1988). However, our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of this motion is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court's order on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Penn, No. CA-911341-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 1991).

4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.