Bubba Williams v. J. Martin

Fifth Circuit

Bubba Williams v. J. Martin

477 F. App'x 294

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 28, 2012

Docket11-20749

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 477 F. App'x 294 (Bubba Williams v. J. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bubba Williams v. J. Martin, 477 F. App'x 294 (5th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Bubba L. Williams, Texas prisoner # 471333, appeals the partial summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Stephen Martin and J. Wang and the denial of his motions to amend his complaint, motions related to discovery, motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and motion for a preliminary injunction. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Williams’s claims against the remaining defendants are pending in the district court; we therefore lack jurisdiction over Williams’s appeal of the dismissal of Martin and Wang and the denial of his motions to amend his complaint and his discovery motions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In addition, the district court’s denial of Williams’s motion for a TRO is not appeal-able. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.1990). Finally, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion for a preliminary injunction because he has not made the required showing. See Texas Midstream Gas Servs., LLC v. City of Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir.2010).

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except .under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Bubba L. Williams, Texas prisoner # 471333, appeals the partial summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Stephen Martin and J. Wang and the denial of his motions to amend his complaint, motions related to discovery, motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and motion for a preliminary injunction. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Williams’s claims against the remaining defendants are pending in the district court; we therefore lack jurisdiction over Williams’s appeal of the dismissal of Martin and Wang and the denial of his motions to amend his complaint and his discovery motions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In addition, the district court’s denial of Williams’s motion for a TRO is not appeal-able. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.1990). Finally, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion for a preliminary injunction because he has not made the required showing. See Texas Midstream Gas Servs., LLC v. City of Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir.2010).

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except .under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 F. App'x 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bubba-williams-v-j-martin-ca5-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack