Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael HRON, Captain, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESS ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1295.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 15, 2003.
    Decided Aug. 6, 2003.
    Peter J. Sarda, Wallace, Creech & Sarda, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kerry A. Shad, Rosemary G. Kenyon, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Hron seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order in his employment action alleging violations of the Uniform Services Employment and ReEmployment Rights Act under 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4333. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hron 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. 
      
       Hron filed a pleading captioned "Motion For Temporary Restraining Order[,] Motion For Preliminary Injunction,” on January 30, 2003. However, the district court ruled only on his motion for a temporary restraining order. As we understand the record, Hron has not pressed the district court for resolution of his motion for a preliminary injunction.