Wagner v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Wagner’s 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 court’s 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 -