Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System, No. 16-2191 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2191 JOSEPH CRUSSIAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant - Appellee, and MEDSTAR FAMILY CHOICE, INC., Intervenor. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:14-cv-04017-PX) Submitted: April 26, 2017 Decided: May 5, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Crussiah, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Francis DeTurris, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Crussiah appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend the complaint, to transfer to state court, for joinder, and for a preliminary injunction. 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 the motions to amend, to transfer, and for joinder are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss Crussiah’s appeal of those rulings for lack of jurisdiction. The denial of Crussiah’s motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290-93 (4th Cir. 2011). In denying relief, the district court did not make specific findings of fact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), nor did it mention the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief and remand so that those findings and factors may be addressed. We express no view on the mertis of Crussiah’s motion. Finally, we deny Crussiah’s motions for declaratory relief, to exceed length limitations, to file a flash drive, and for judicial notice. We deny as moot Crussiah’s motion to expedite review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 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.