Ronnie Noel v. Lieutenant Colonel Kumer , 584 F. App'x 89 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7048
RONNIE A. NOEL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL KUMER; ROSETTA BOWLES; PAYTEL PHONE
SYSTEM; MEDICAL DIRECTOR; DENISE Y. LUNFORD, Commonwealth
Attorney; WILLIAM KAVANAH, Arresting Officer; JAMES
HINGELEY, Supervisor, Albemarle Public Defender's Office;
VOPA, Virginia Office of Protection and Advocacy,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00200-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ronnie A. Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY
LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and
dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) action. As to the dismissal order, this court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The dismissal
order Noel seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The denial of a preliminary injunction is an
immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1). We have reviewed the record in light of Noel’s
challenges to the denial of injunctive relief and find no
reversible error, as we conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Noel failed to make the
requisite showing. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (requirements for preliminary
injunction); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290
(4th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm in
part, insofar as Noel challenges the district court’s order
denying a preliminary injunction. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3