Jorge Gevara v. F. Hubbard, No. 10-7481 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7481 JORGE GEVARA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. F. B. HUBBARD, Superintendent; CRUTCHFIELD, Assist. Superintendent of Programs; DEBRA DUNCAN, R.N. - Medical Administrator; C. FIELDS, Correctional Officer; DAVID OSTORNE, Asst. Director Prisons; PAULA Y. SMITH, Medical Director of Prisons; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Prisons; D. JONES MURPHY, Nurse; AMY S. MACKEY; PETER KEYSER; MR. PERRITT, Unit Manager; T. JONES, Asst. Unit Manager; P. BETHEA, Correctional Officer; PURCEL, Correctional Officer; QUICK, Sergeant; MILLER, Sergeant; ASHE HARRIS, Notary Public; DIRECTOR OF PRISONS BOYD BENNETT, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00681-WO-LPA) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny Gevara s Motion to Amend an Order to Show Cause and for an Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and Appointment of Counsel as a Magistrate s Support Opinion of & Any Error Order. and This Objections court to may the exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 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, 545-47 (1949). to appeal is interlocutory neither or a final collateral The order Gevara seeks order order. nor an Accordingly, appealable we deny Gevara s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 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. DISMISSED 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.