George W. Gantt, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Maryland Division of Correction; Richard Lanham; Seawallsmith, Warden; Purnell, Chief of Security; Lieutenantdiay; Cornish, Co Ii; Major Councel; Captain Mclean;jake Sutton, Co Ii; Bryant Goode, Co Ii; Bagley, Arpcoordinator, Defendants-appellees, 993 F.2d 1536 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 993 F.2d 1536 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: May 3, 1993Decided: May 28, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-92-2124-B)

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D. Md.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

George W. Gantt appeals the district court's denial of his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and "any response or any judgment entered by this court in the above captioned case in 1992 or 1993." Our review of the record reveals that, as of the filing date of Gantt's notice of appeal, no motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, order denying said motion, or judgment had been filed in this case. Hence, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous, for it lacks any arguable legal or factual issues. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We also dismiss Gantt's appeal of the district court's "responses" for lack of jurisdiction because they are not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The "responses" here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

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

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.