Scott Turner v. Anne Arundel County Detention
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01286-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Scott Turner. [17-6793]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT ELLIOTT TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; DR. RIVERA, Corizon
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Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED 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?