Ronnie Noel v. Lieutenant Colonel Kumer, No. 14-7048 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7048 RONNIE A. NOEL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT COLONEL KUMER; ROSETTA BOWLES; PAYTEL PHONE SYSTEM; MEDICAL DIRECTOR; DENISE Y. LUNFORD, Commonwealth Attorney; WILLIAM KAVANAH, Arresting Officer; JAMES HINGELEY, Supervisor, Albemarle Public Defender's Office; VOPA, Virginia Office of Protection and Advocacy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00200-GEC-RSB) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie A. Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, PC, Dillwyn, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie orders denying Noel his seeks motion to for appeal a the district preliminary court s injunction and dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. As to the dismissal order, 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 dismissal order Noel seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The immediately denial of appealable a preliminary interlocutory injunction order. is 28 an U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We have reviewed the record in light of Noel s challenges to the reversible error, denial as we of injunctive conclude the relief district and court find no did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Noel failed to make the requisite showing. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 20 555 U.S. 7, (2008) (requirements for preliminary injunction); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). part, insofar denying a as Noel preliminary challenges injunction. 2 Accordingly, we affirm in the district We court s dispense with order 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.