U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1996

Sutton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Sutton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 4, 1996
81 F.3d 151; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 14024; 1996 WL 156395 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Sutton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

81 F.3d 151

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Dawn D. SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; John Fanello, Warden; Kathy
Halh (or Halk), Correctional Officer; Kenneth P. Moritsugu,
Health Services Director; Roland E. Williams, Hospital
Service Administrator; Bernord Parina, Clinical Director of
Health Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7551.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 1996.
Decided: April 4, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Robert L. Buchanan, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-1516-9-0JC)

Dawn D. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal from a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to deny his motions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the magistrate judge's report is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The report here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.