Steven Barnes v. E. Quattlebaum

Filing 920091006

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6619 STEVEN LEWIS BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. E. QUATTLEBAUM, Sergeant, individually and official capacity; MAJOR JACKSON, individually and official capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:08-cv-02197-MBS-TER) Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven court's order Lewis Barnes the seeks to appeal of the the district magistrate adopting recommendation judge and denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial exceptional Indus. Loan Corp., not 337 U.S. 541 (1949). the denial Absent of a circumstances present here, motion for a temporary restraining order is interlocutory and not appealable. 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). the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?