Scott Turner v. Anne Arundel County Detention

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01286-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000177452]. Mailed to: Scott Turner. [17-6793]

Appeal: 17-6793

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6793

SCOTT ELLIOTT TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; DR. RIVERA, Corizon
Health,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01286-GLR)

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

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

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Elliott Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Philip E. Culpepper, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6793

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Scott Elliott Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying preliminary
injunctive relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, dismissing one defendant, and
ordering the remaining defendant to respond to Turner’s complaint.

To the extent that

Turner challenges the denial of a preliminary injunction, we have jurisdiction to consider
this portion of the order, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012), and conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying the injunction, United States v. South Carolina, 720
F.3d 518, 524 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review); Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (listing elements needed to obtain preliminary
injunction). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction.
To the extent Turner seeks to appeal other portions of the district court’s order, we
lack jurisdiction to consider these challenges because the remainder of the order is neither
a final order, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order,
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). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

2