Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07852/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07852-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7852

LARNELL HENDRICK,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; FRANK B. BISHOP, NBCI Warden, 

In their individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT 

SAWYERS, In their individual and Official Capacities; 

SERGEANT G. FORNEY, In their individual and Official 

Capacities; CO II SOLTAS, In their individual and Official 

Capacities; CO II ANDERSON, In their individual and 

Official Capacities; BILL BEEMAN, NBCI Medical Director, In 

their individual and Official Capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-02544-TDC)

Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 15, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Larnell Hendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, 

RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-7852 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7852 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Larnell Hendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order: denying his motions for preliminary injunction and for 

appointment of counsel; and granting his motions to correct the 

record and to amend the complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) action. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary 

injunction for abuse of discretion. WV Ass’n of Club Owners & 

Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 

2009). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that Hendrick failed to make the showing 

required for issuance of a preliminary injunction. See

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008). We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s 

order denying the requested injunction for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Hendrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 

No. 8:14-cv-02544-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2014).

With respect to the remainder of the district court’s 

order, 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 (1949). The non-dispositive orders denying the motion 

for appointment of counsel and granting the motions to amend the 

Appeal: 14-7852 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

complaint and to correct the record are neither final orders nor 

appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we 

dismiss this portion of the appeal.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 14-7852 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/15/2015 Pg: 4 of 4