McClelland v. Johnson ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7787
    STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
    Party in Interest - Appellant,
    and
    ALLEN  MCRAE;   CHARLES STEVENSON; PATRICK
    LAHENS; DENNIS BLYDEN; DAVID EVICK, JR.;
    RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    -----------------
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Movant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-03-164)
    Submitted:   May 4, 2005                     Decided:   May 20, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen E. McClelland seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judge’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order.
    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
    U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949).                 The order
    McClelland    seeks   to   appeal   is   neither   a   final   order   nor   an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.           See Office of Pers.
    Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, 
    473 U.S. 1301
    , 1303-04
    (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 
    482 F.2d 1375
    , 1376 (4th Cir. 1973).
    Accordingly, we 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 the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -