Case Name: Yolanda BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anne M. HEISHMAN; Kenneth Labowitz; Saben Johnston, Esquire; Blankenship & Keith; Inova Health Care, d/b/a INOVA Fairfax Hospital; Beverly Enterprises Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Golden Living Centers-Sleepy Hollow, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-19
Citations: 699 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 17-1606
Parties: Yolanda BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anne M. HEISHMAN; Kenneth Labowitz; Saben Johnston, Esquire; Blankenship & Keith; Inova Health Care, d/b/a INOVA Fairfax Hospital; Beverly Enterprises Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Golden Living Centers-Sleepy Hollow, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
Yolanda BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anne M. HEISHMAN; Kenneth Labowitz; Saben Johnston, Esquire; Blankenship & Keith; Inova Health Care, d/b/a INOVA Fairfax Hospital; Beverly Enterprises Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Golden Living Centers-Sleepy Hollow, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1606
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 19, 2017
Yolanda Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Edward Labowitz, DINGMAN LABOW-ITZ, PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Mark Sheridan Brennan, Ashley Goin Moss, VAN-DEVENTER BLACK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Bell seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying her motion for a temporary restraining order and her motions for reconsideration. 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 orders Bell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, although we grant Bell's motion to expedite, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED