Samuel Jackson v. Eddie Hart, No. 15-6447 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6447 SAMUEL R. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EDDIE HART; CHARLIE HARGROVE; JOYCE COZART; GREGORY GOULDMAN; ASCEE ANDERSON; DR. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY; PAMALA HENDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03202-D) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Elizabeth Tanner, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders disposing of several motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s denial of Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel and the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Lightsey are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jackson also appeals the district court’s denial of three motions for injunctive relief. The court’s order is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 2
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.
