Samuel Jackson v. Marla Magana

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03295-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999902370]. Mailed to: Samuel Jackson. [16-6031]

Appeal: 16-6031

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6031

SAMUEL R. JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NURSE MARLA MAGANA; DR. ROBERT OWENS; DR. ELIZABETH BYRD,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SUPERINTENDENT DENNIS DANIELS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03295-FL)

Submitted: July 20, 2016

Decided:

August 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street
Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-6031

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6031

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Samuel
denying

R.

Jackson

relief

on

his

appeals
42

several related orders.

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 1983

court’s

(2012)

order

complaint

and

We dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction to the extent it challenges the denial of Jackson’s
request

for

a

temporary

restraining

order.

See

Virginia

v.

Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029–30 (4th Cir. 1976) (observing
that orders granting or denying temporary restraining order are
not

generally

claims,

we

appealable).

have

reviewed

With
the

respect

record

and

to

Jackson’s

find

no

other

reversible

error; thus, we affirm the district court’s orders as to these
claims for the reasons stated by the district court.
Magana,
dispense

No.

5:13-ct-03295-FL

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

(E.D.N.C.
because

presented

in

Nov.
the
the

Jackson v.

24,

2015).

We

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3