Larnell Hendrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 14-7852 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7852 LARNELL HENDRICK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; FRANK B. BISHOP, NBCI Warden, In their individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT SAWYERS, In their individual and Official Capacities; SERGEANT G. FORNEY, In their individual and Official Capacities; CO II SOLTAS, In their individual and Official Capacities; CO II ANDERSON, In their individual and Official Capacities; BILL BEEMAN, NBCI Medical Director, In their individual and Official Capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:14-cv-02544-TDC) Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 15, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larnell Hendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Larnell Hendrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order: denying his motions for preliminary injunction and for appointment of counsel; and granting his motions to correct the record and to (2012) action. We amend the complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 We affirm in part and dismiss in part. review the denial of a motion injunction for abuse of discretion. for a preliminary WV Ass’n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hendrick failed to make the showing required for Winter v. (2008). issuance Natural of Res. a Def. preliminary Council, injunction. Inc., 555 See U.S. 7, 20 We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying the requested injunction for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendrick v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02544-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2014). With order, respect this to court may the remainder exercise of the jurisdiction district only court’s over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2012); Loan Fed. Corp., 337 R. Civ. U.S. P. 541, The non-dispositive orders denying the motion for appointment of counsel and granting the motions to amend the 3 complaint and to correct the record are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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 4
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.
