Kay Frances Gibbs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women; Roseshalom, Doctor; Jane Yarborough; Kathy Russell;paula Clark; L. Suggs, Defendants-appellees, 17 F.3d 1433 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 17 F.3d 1433 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted Jan. 27, 1994. Decided March 3, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-93386-CRT-BO)

Kay Frances Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se.

Norma Louise Ware, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, NC, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing some of the Defendants, denying numerous motions, and denying injunctive relief.

This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain 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 portion of the district court's order dismissing some of the Defendants and denying numerous motions is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Thus, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is interlocutory and not appealable.

However, the denial of injunctive relief may be immediately appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's order discloses that this portion of the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the denial of injunctive relief on the reasoning of the district court. Gibbs v. North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, No. CA-93-386-CRT-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 1993).

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 AND DISMISSED IN PART

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.