Bradley v. Angelone
Bradley v. Angelone
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6663
JERRY BRADLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-134-2)
Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Bradley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and for a temporary restrain- ing order, preliminary and permanent injunction. Appellant sought to prevent the implementation of a prison regulation governing contraband.
To the extent that Appellant appeals the denial of a temporary restraining order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise juris- diction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and cer- tain 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 order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
To the extent that Appellant appeals the denial of injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bradley v. Angelone, No. CA-96- 134-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion in this court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunc- tion. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.