Court Opinion

ID: 9401066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:46.647226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.633970
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6038      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6038

        LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILLIAM C. SMITH, Superintendent; ERNEST BOWER, Superintendent; TANYA
        BLAIR, Captain/Supervisor; LIEUTENANT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT EVERETT;
        SERGEANT BRINKLY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00285-AWA-LRL)

        Submitted: May 16, 2023                                              Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6038      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               LeAnthony T. Winston filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or

        preliminary injunction in the district court, seeking release from imprisonment while his

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending. Winston then noted an appeal of the district court’s

        purported denial of the motion. However, the district court has issued no ruling pertaining

        to Winston’s motion. Because there has been neither a final order nor an appealable

        interlocutory or collateral order entered in this case, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

        jurisdiction. See United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting “we have

        jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders”). We

        also deny Winston’s pending motions. 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

                                                    2