Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Allmond v. Dunning, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darryl Allmond. The district court denied Allmond's motion for a temporary restraining order. The appeals court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a temporary restraining order is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-2025

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darryl Allmond. The district court denied Allmond's motion for a temporary restraining order. The appeals court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a temporary restraining order is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Allmond v. Dunning, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Darryl Allmond. The district court denied Allmond's motion for a temporary restraining order. The appeals court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of a temporary restraining order is not a final order and does not fall under the limited categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, the appeals court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-2025

    DARRYL ALLMOND,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES
    DUNNING;
    ALEXANDRIA
    SHERIFFS
    DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; DEPUTY COZZA;
    DEPUTY WINSTEAD; DEPUTY MASON; SERGEANT ELLER;
    RICHARD R. RUSCAK; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-1106-A)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2002

    Decided:

    December 19, 2002

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darryl Allmond, Appellant Pro Se.


    Christina Elaine Kearney,
    SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia; George Arthur
    McAndrews, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl Allmond seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his motion for a temporary restraining 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).

    The order Allmond seeks to appeal

    is

    an

    neither

    final

    collateral order.

    order

    nor

    appealable

    interlocutory

    or

    Accordingly, we 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like