Ronnie Noel v. Lieutenant Colonel Kumer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00200-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999445762]. Mailed to: Noel. [14-7048]

Appeal: 14-7048

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7048

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronnie
orders

denying

Noel
his

seeks

motion

to
for

appeal
a

the

district

preliminary

court’s

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
immediately

denial

of

appealable

a

preliminary

interlocutory

injunction

order.

is

28

an

U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1).

We have reviewed the record in light of Noel’s

challenges

to

the

reversible

error,

denial
as

we

of

injunctive

conclude

the

relief

district

and
court

find

no

did

not

abuse its discretion in concluding that Noel failed to make the
requisite showing.

See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc.,

20

555

U.S.

7,

(2008)

(requirements

for

preliminary

injunction); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290
(4th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).
part,

insofar

denying

a

as

Noel

preliminary

challenges
injunction.
2

Accordingly, we affirm in

the

district
We

court’s

dispense

with

order
oral

Appeal: 14-7048

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/30/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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