The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-6031•Samuel R. Jackson v. Nurse Marla Magana; Dr. Robert Owens; Dr. Elizabeth Byrd
16-6031Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 2, 2016
UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.