Aaron Flemons v. Emma Hatchett

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 2025
Docket24-2294
StatusUnpublished

This text of Aaron Flemons v. Emma Hatchett (Aaron Flemons v. Emma Hatchett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aaron Flemons v. Emma Hatchett, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2294 ___________________________

Aaron Anthony Flemons

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Emma Hatchett, Health Services Administrator; Angela Douglas, Director of Nurses; Tracy Bennett, APRN, Medical Care Provider; Hays, Medical Care Provider; Kerstein, Dr., Medical Care Provider; Graham, Sgt., ADC Security Staff

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Does, 1-2, Medical and ADC Security Staff Members

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta ____________

Submitted: January 14, 2025 Filed: January 17, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas inmate Aaron Flemons appeals the district court’s1 denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, and an evidentiary hearing in his civil rights action. He also appeals the court’s grant of his motion to consider belated objections. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction as to the denial of his motion for TRO, see Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994), the denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing, see Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340, 350 (8th Cir. 2012), and the grant of his motion to consider objections, see United States v. Northshore Mining Co., 576 F.3d 840, 847 (8th Cir. 2009). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Tr. v. Cori, 924 F.3d 1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review).

Accordingly, the denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed, and the remainder of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Edie R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hamm v. Groose
15 F.3d 110 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Matthew Livers v. Tim Dunning
700 F.3d 340 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Northshore Mining Co.
576 F.3d 840 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori
924 F.3d 1004 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Aaron Flemons v. Emma Hatchett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-flemons-v-emma-hatchett-ca8-2025.