Dwight Charles Wishard v. US
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03173-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Dwight Charles Wishard FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 1600 Butner, NC 27509-0000. [17-6310]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DWIGHT CHARLES WISHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
ALL UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF TRUST
OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS; ALL UNITED STATES FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISON OFFICE OF TRUST OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:16-ct-03173-F)
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 31, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 3
Dwight Charles Wishard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Dwight Charles Wishard seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing in part Wishard’s civil action and
denying Wishard’s motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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
portion of the order that dismissed in part Wishard’s action is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
However, we have jurisdiction over that portion of the order that denied Wishard’s
motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Wishard’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s
disposition of this motion, Wishard has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the
See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief.
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
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
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?