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)
17-1606•Yolanda Bell v. Anne M. Heishman
17-1606Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 19, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1606
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00430-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yolanda Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Edward Labowitz, DINGMAN LABOWITZ,
PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Mark Sheridan Brennan, Ashley Goin Moss,
VANDEVENTER BLACK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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 (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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.