UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6796
CHARLES M. CASSELL, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR JAGUST; DOCTOR MICHALAS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:06-ct-03025-BO)
Submitted: October 4, 2006 Decided: October 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Cassell, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for “a temporary restraining order
and/or a preliminary injunction” in his civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). The portion of the order denying a temporary
restraining order is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that
aspect of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the district court’s denial of a
request for a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2000). With respect to the district court’s
denial of Cassell’s motion for a preliminary injunction,* we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the
district court. Cassell v. Jagust, No. 5:06-ct-03025-BO (E.D.N.C.
Apr. 12, 2006). We also deny all of Cassell’s pending motions for
general relief in this court. We dispense with oral argument
*
The district court’s written order denied only Cassell’s
motion for a temporary restraining order. However, the district
court’s docket sheet indicates the court denied both a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Cassell appealed
from both denials.
- 2 -
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -