Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wagner v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The court affirmed the district court's denial of Wagner's motion for a preliminary injunction but dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The district court's order did not rule on all claims against all defendants, so it was not a final order subject to appeal. The court has jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory orders, which this order was not. Therefore, the court dismissed the part of the appeal addressing other rulings in the district court's order for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-02-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7609

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court affirmed the district court's denial of Wagner's motion for a preliminary injunction but dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The district court's order did not rule on all claims against all defendants, so it was not a final order subject to appeal. The court has jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory orders, which this order was not. Therefore, the court dismissed the part of the appeal addressing other rulings in the district court's order for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    Wagner v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the district court's denial of Wagner's motion for a preliminary injunction but dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The district court's order did not rule on all claims against all defendants, so it was not a final order subject to appeal. The court has jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory orders, which this order was not. Therefore, the court dismissed the part of the appeal addressing other rulings in the district court's order for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7609

    DONALD WAGNER, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of
    Corrections; ARMOR HEALTH SERVICES, Health
    Provider; DILLMAN, Warden, C.W.C.C.; GARY L.
    BASS,
    Department
    of
    Corrections;
    FRED
    SCHILLING, Health Service Director; THOMAS
    PARHAM, Medical Director; CHERIAN JOSEPH,
    Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:06-cv-00527)

    Submitted:

    January 18, 2008

    Decided:

    February 11, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam


    opinion.

    Donald Wagner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant


    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, Gauhar Rehman Naseem, DUANE,
    HAUCK & GNAPP, PC, Richmond, Virginia, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney,
    RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Wagner, Jr., timely appealed an order of the
    district

    court

    (1)

    denying

    Wagners

    motion

    for

    preliminary

    injunction and (2) ruling on various motions to dismiss and for


    summary judgment.

    In its order, the district court did not rule on

    all claims as to all defendants.


    With respect to the denial of preliminary injunctive
    relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
    court.

    Wagner v. Johnson, No. 3:06-cv-00527 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25,

    2007).
    The remainder of the district courts order is neither a final
    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    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).

    Accordingly, we dismiss

    this portion of 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.

    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART

    - 3 -

    You might also like