Warren Chase v. Warden, No. 10-6661 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6661 WARREN CHASE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02566-CCB) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court s order concerning his supplement to the complaint and his motion for a preliminary injunction. Insofar as Chase claims that the court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint, we are without jurisdiction. over final orders, This court may exercise jurisdiction only 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). directing relevant complaint the to Defendants the is to respond of period neither That part of the court s order time a final only discussed order interlocutory or collateral order. to nor the in allegations the an original appealable Accordingly, we dismiss in part the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to Chase s appeal from that part of the order denying his request for emergency injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chase v. Warden, No. 1:08-cv- 02566-CCB (D. Md. filed Feb. 18, 2010, entered Feb. 19, 2010). Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument 2 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

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.