MICHAEL HRON, Captain v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1295
MICHAEL HRON, Captain,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PROGRESS ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-77-5-BR)
Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter J. Sarda, WALLACE, CREECH & SARDA, L.L.P., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kerry A. Shad, Rosemary G. Kenyon, SMITH,
ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Hron filed a pleading captioned “Motion For Temporary
Restraining Order[,] Motion For Preliminary Injunction,” on
January 30, 2003. However, the district court ruled only on his
motion for a temporary restraining order. As we understand the
record, Hron has not pressed the district court for resolution of
his motion for a preliminary injunction.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hron seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for a temporary restraining order * in his
employment action alleging violations of the Uniform Services
Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act under 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-
4333. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Hron
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --