Edmond v. Kaylo ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31410
Summary Calendar
WILBERT EDMOND, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BARON KAYLO; RUSSELL DESSELL;
PACHETO, DR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CV-1242)
--------------------
July 30, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Wilbert Edmond, Jr., Louisiana state
prisoner # 97367, appeals from the district court’s denial of his
request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and sanctions. If
necessary, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua
sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from
(1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) interlocutory orders
falling within specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); (3) orders
that are deemed final due to jurisprudential exception; or (4)
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
orders that have been properly certified as final pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 54(b) or that have been properly certified for appeal by
the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dardar v.
Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save
the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.
1981). As a denial of an application for a TRO is not covered by
any of the foregoing categories, it is not an appealable order.
Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990); Faulder v.
Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1018
(1999).
For lack of appellate jurisdiction, Edmond’s appeal from the
denial of his motion for a TRO and sanctions is
DISMISSED.
2