UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6445

PAUL E. SEELIG, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

KENNETH LASSITER; LARRY DAIL; THOMAS ASBELL; DAVID MAY, JR.; 

PAULA PAGE; TOMMY PAGE; CAPTAIN FIELDS; CAPTAIN JOHNSON; 

CAPTAIN ENSLOW; LT. SUGGS; LT. ARTIS; LT. HALL; LT. PHILLIPS; LT. 

HOLLOWELL; SGT. WILLIAMS; SGT. MS. WILLIAMS; SGT. HAWKINS; 

SGT. FORBES; SGT. OLIVER; SGT. JONES; SGT. DIXON; SGT. DAWSON; 

SGT. SHIRLEY; SGT. MARKER; SGT. BOONE; SGT. MORGAN; SGT. 

COOPER; SGT. FARROW; MS. HENSON; MR. BYNUM; MRS. BYNUM; MR. 

HAGGERTY; MS. PHILLIPS; MS. LEE; MS. PULLY; MS. ASWELL; MR. 

DANT; MS. TORRES; MS. BOYLES; MS. HAWKINS; MR. BURRUS; MR. 

WARD; MS. WILLIAMS; MR. MOORE; MS. DIXON; MR. COLE; MS. LEVI; 

OFFICER HILLARD; MR. LANCASTER; MR. MILLARD; MR. STOCKS; MR. 

MOSS; MR. SPIVEY; MR. SHINGLETON; MR. DUPREE; MR. BITTLE; MR. 

APPENHEIMER; MS. PEDEXA; MS. KUNE; MR. CELLNER; MR. JOHNSON; 

MS. EGMENTON; MR. ROBERTS; MR. HUNTER; MS. SMALLWOOD; MR. 

BEDMON; MS. SHEPPARD; MR. TYSON; MR. HARRIS; MR. MOORE; MR. 

SKINNER; MR. BRIGHT; MR. HASSELL; MR. KENNEDY; MR. MITCHELL; 

MR. CORNELIUS; MS. STEWART; MR. NEWBORN; MR. STREETER; MR. 

HARRISON; MS. WEST; MS. JONES; MR. HARVEY; MR. BROCK; MR. 

DAWSON; MR. CANNON; MR. YOUNG; MR. HAM; NURSE MS. SMITH; MS. 

MOORE; MS. MILLER; MS. WATSON; MR. KEARNEY; JOHN DOES 1-100; 

JANE DOES 1-100, 

Defendants - Appellees. 
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03206-D) 

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: September 5, 2019

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Paul E. Seelig, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Paul E. Seelig seeks to appeal from the district court’s order: granting in part his 

motion to appoint counsel; dismissing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and certain 

Defendants; dismissing his requests for punitive and compensatory damages; allowing his 

claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 

(West 2013 & Supp. 2019) (ADA) to proceed; directing that he file a response explaining 

the specific role of each Defendant with respect to his ADA claims; denying his motions 

to assign the action to another district judge, to certify the action as a class action, and for 

a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order; denying the motions for 

sanctions and to issue a writ of mandamus filed by a nonparty; and dismissing as 

duplicative any attempt by Seelig to assert a claim raised in prior litigation. We dismiss 

the appeal. 

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, 545-47 (1949). In large part, 

the order Seelig seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory* or 

 * An order denying a preliminary injunction is an immediately appealable 

interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). However, we lack jurisdiction to review the 

denial of a temporary restraining order. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 

473 U.S. 1301, 1303-05 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973) 

(per curiam). One of Seelig’s motions requested a preliminary injunction and a temporary 

restraining order. Because a “court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to 

the adverse party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), and Seelig did not provide any notice of the 

motion to Defendants, we construe this motion to be requesting only a temporary 

restraining order. 
4

collateral order. This court may permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying class 

certification, but an appellant must petition this court for leave to appeal within 14 days 

after the order is entered. Fed R. Civ. P. 23(f); see Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, ___ 

U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019) (holding that Rule 23(f)’s time limitation is not 

jurisdictional). Seelig did not petition this court for permission to appeal the portion of the 

order denying his request for class certification as required by Rule 23(f). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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