Tindle v. Blair

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2022
Docket20-40205
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tindle v. Blair (Tindle v. Blair) 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
Tindle v. Blair, (5th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

Case: 20-40205 Document: 00516153500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 4, 2022 No. 20-40205 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Laroy James Tindle,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Latina Blair; Nancy A. Edens, Physician's Assistant - UTMB; Paul W. Shrode, Medical Doctor - UTMB; Karen Page, Licensed Vocational Nurse; Rebecca M. Cox, Grievance Director,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:19-CV-95

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-40205 Document: 00516153500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022

Laroy James Tindle, Texas prisoner # 1966673 or 21446891, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims against appellees Blair, Page, Shrode, the other defendants, and striking his motion for a preliminary injunction in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court’s order did not dispose of all of Tindle’s § 1983 claims because some claims remain against Dr. Shrode. The district court did not certify the order as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or as appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court’s interlocutory order is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) because the district court did not deny Tindle’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction on the merits but ordered it stricken because Tindle did not sign the motion. Because there is no final and appealable judgment, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993).

1 On the first page of his complaint, Tindle gave his TDCJ # as 2144689, but on the last page he wrote # 1966673.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tindle v. Blair, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tindle-v-blair-ca5-2022.