Mark Pernell Edlow, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Edward W. Murray; James A. Smith, Jr.; P. A. Terrangi,defendants Appellees, 19 F.3d 10 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 19 F.3d 10 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted: January 27, 1994. Decided: March 1, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-820).

Mark Pernell Edlow, Appellant Pro Se.

Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order dismissing one Defendant, dismissing some of Appellant's claims, and dismissing as moot Appellant's claim for 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 magistrate judge's order dismissing one Defendant and dismissing some of Appellant's claims is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Thus, we dismiss this portion of 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 magistrate judge's opinion 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 magistrate judge. Edlow v. Murray, No. CA-92-820 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 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

 *

The case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(c) (1) (West Supp.1993)

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.