Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System

688 F. App'x 218
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 2017
Docket16-2191
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 688 F. App'x 218 (Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System, 688 F. App'x 218 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s denial of the motions to amend, to transfer, and for joinder are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory ór 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., *219 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of preliminary injunc-tive relief and remand so that those findings and factors may be addressed. We express no view on the merits of Crussi-ah’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 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

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

Related

Ronald L. Jones v. Rogers Townsend & Thomas, P.C.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
688 F. App'x 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-crussiah-v-inova-health-system-ca4-2017.