Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Leake v. Talbert, 03-7332 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7332 Visitors: 18
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7332 JESSE LEAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE TALBERT; NURSE STEWART; NURSE HARDY; NURSE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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer