Filed: Dec. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7332 JESSE LEAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE TALBERT; NURSE STEWART; NURSE HARDY; NURSE WILLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-02-867) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7332 JESSE LEAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE TALBERT; NURSE STEWART; NURSE HARDY; NURSE WILLIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-02-867) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7332
JESSE LEAKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAYNE TALBERT; NURSE STEWART; NURSE HARDY;
NURSE WILLIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-02-867)
Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse Leake, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Leake, a North Carolina inmate, appeals from the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Leake’s motion
for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction be
denied. 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
order appealed from is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2