Joseph Crussiah v. Inova Health System
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.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
688 F. App'x 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-crussiah-v-inova-health-system-ca4-2017.