Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System , 688 F. App'x 218 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2191
JOSEPH CRUSSIAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MEDSTAR FAMILY CHOICE, INC.,
Intervenor.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:14-cv-04017-PX)
Submitted: April 26, 2017 Decided: May 5, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Crussiah, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Francis DeTurris, BLANKINGSHIP &
KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Crussiah appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend
the complaint, to transfer to state court, for joinder, and for a preliminary injunction.
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 district
court’s denial of the motions to amend, to transfer, and for joinder are neither final orders
nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss Crussiah’s
appeal of those rulings for lack of jurisdiction.
The denial of Crussiah’s motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable
interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum
Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290-93 (4th Cir. 2011). In denying relief, the district court did not
make specific findings of fact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), nor did it mention the factors
set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief and
remand so that those findings and factors may be addressed. We express no view on the
mertis of Crussiah’s motion.
Finally, we deny Crussiah’s motions for declaratory relief, to exceed length
limitations, to file a flash drive, and for judicial notice. We deny as moot Crussiah’s
motion to expedite review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
4