Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06031/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Byrd
Appellee
Dennis Daniels

Samuel R. Jackson
Appellant
Marla Magana
Appellee
Robert Owens
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6031

SAMUEL R. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NURSE MARLA MAGANA; DR. ROBERT OWENS; DR. ELIZABETH BYRD,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SUPERINTENDENT DENNIS DANIELS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:13-ct-03295-FL)

Submitted: July 20, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special 

Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street 

Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-6031 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6031 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Samuel R. Jackson appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and 

several related orders. We dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction to the extent it challenges the denial of Jackson’s 

request for a temporary restraining order. See Virginia v. 

Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029–30 (4th Cir. 1976) (observing 

that orders granting or denying temporary restraining order are 

not generally appealable). With respect to Jackson’s other 

claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error; thus, we affirm the district court’s orders as to these 

claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. 

Magana, No. 5:13-ct-03295-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2015). 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

Appeal: 16-6031 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3