Filed: Dec. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1885 EDWARD H. BENDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD L. EVANS, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA A. KURKUL, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1885 EDWARD H. BENDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD L. EVANS, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA A. KURKUL, in her official capacity as Regional Administrator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1885
EDWARD H. BENDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONALD L. EVANS, in his official capacity as
U.S. Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA A.
KURKUL, in her official capacity as Regional
Administrator for National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-03-519-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 3, 2003
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward H. Bender, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward H. Bender seeks to appeal the denial of a motion for a
temporary restraining order. 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 Bender seeks to appeal 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