R. Paul Carroll v. Jack Chivatero, Dist. Dir. Irs, Melanie Wildenthaler, Revenue Officer

Sixth Circuit

R. Paul Carroll v. Jack Chivatero, Dist. Dir. Irs, Melanie Wildenthaler, Revenue Officer

865 F.2d 256, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17167, 1988 WL 135901

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1988

Docket88-3816

StatusUnpublished

This text of 865 F.2d 256 (R. Paul Carroll v. Jack Chivatero, Dist. Dir. Irs, Melanie Wildenthaler, Revenue Officer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. Paul Carroll v. Jack Chivatero, Dist. Dir. Irs, Melanie Wildenthaler, Revenue Officer, 865 F.2d 256, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17167, 1988 WL 135901 (6th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

865 F.2d 256

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
R. Paul CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jack CHIVATERO, Dist. Dir. IRS, Melanie Wildenthaler,
Revenue Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3816.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1988.

Before BOYCE MARTIN, Jr., and NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judges; and JOHN FEIKENS, Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not yet filed a response.

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As the basis of his cause of action, he alleged that defendants had improperly obtained the garnishment of his wages in order to collect funds which he owed due to his failure to pay income taxes. Pending the final disposition of his claim, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the further garnishment of his wages. After an informal, in-chambers hearing, however, the district court determined that such relief was unwarranted and summarily denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff thereafter filed this appeal.

Defendants now move for the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Upon review of the record, the court has concluded that the motion should be granted as an order denying a temporary restraining order is not final and appealable and therefore is not susceptible to appellate review. Leslie v. Penn Central Railroad Co., 410 F.2d 750, 751 (6th Cir.1969) (per curiam).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is hereby granted.

*

The Honorable John Feikens, U.S. Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

865 F.2d 256

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
R. Paul CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jack CHIVATERO, Dist. Dir. IRS, Melanie Wildenthaler,
Revenue Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3816.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1988.

Before BOYCE MARTIN, Jr., and NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judges; and JOHN FEIKENS, Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not yet filed a response.

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As the basis of his cause of action, he alleged that defendants had improperly obtained the garnishment of his wages in order to collect funds which he owed due to his failure to pay income taxes. Pending the final disposition of his claim, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the further garnishment of his wages. After an informal, in-chambers hearing, however, the district court determined that such relief was unwarranted and summarily denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff thereafter filed this appeal.

Defendants now move for the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Upon review of the record, the court has concluded that the motion should be granted as an order denying a temporary restraining order is not final and appealable and therefore is not susceptible to appellate review. Leslie v. Penn Central Railroad Co., 410 F.2d 750, 751 (6th Cir.1969) (per curiam).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is hereby granted.

*

The Honorable John Feikens, U.S. Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 F.2d 256, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 17167, 1988 WL 135901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-paul-carroll-v-jack-chivatero-dist-dir-irs-melan-ca6-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack