Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0297-01.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

Samuel R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eddie HART; Charlie Hargrove; Joyce Cozart; Gregory Gouldman; Ascee Anderson; Dr. Joseph Lightsey; Pamala Henderson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-6447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 23, 2015.
    Decided: July 27, 2015.
    Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Elizabeth Tanner, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Young Moore & Henderson, .PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders disposing of several motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s denial of Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel and the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Lightsey are neither final orders nor ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Jackson also appeals the district court’s denial of three motions for injunctive relief. The court’s order is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying injunctive relief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.