Yolanda Bell v. Anne Heishman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to expedite decision [1000131199-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000097892-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00430-AJT-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000176500]. Mailed to: Mark Brennan and Ashley Moss. [17-1606]

Appeal: 17-1606

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1606

YOLANDA BELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNE M. HEISHMAN; KENNETH LABOWITZ; SABEN JOHNSTON, Esquire;
BLANKENSHIP & KEITH; INOVA HEALTH CARE, d/b/a INOVA Fairfax Hospital;
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES VIRGINIA, INC., d/b/a Golden Living Centers-Sleepy
Hollow,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00430-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 19, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yolanda Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Edward Labowitz, DINGMAN LABOWITZ,
PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Mark Sheridan Brennan, Ashley Goin Moss,
VANDEVENTER BLACK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1606

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motion for a
temporary restraining order and her motions for reconsideration. 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 orders Bell seeks to appeal are
neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Accordingly,

although we grant Bell’s motion to expedite, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2