Tyrone Hurt v. The City of St. Louis

Fourth Circuit

Tyrone Hurt v. The City of St. Louis

647 F. App'x 251

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 2016

Docket15-2230, 15-2231, 15-2233, 15-2234, 15-2235, 15-2236, 15-2237, 15-2238, 15-2241, 15-2242, 15-2243, 15-2244, 15-2246, 15-2249, 15-2250, 15-2251

StatusUnpublished

This text of 647 F. App'x 251 (Tyrone Hurt v. The City of St. Louis) 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

Tyrone Hurt v. The City of St. Louis, 647 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and directing Hurt to show cause why a prefiling injunction should not issue. We dismiss the appeal.

With respect to the dismissal of these actions as frivolous, we have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurt v. City of St. Louis, No. 5:15-cv-00310-D; Hurt v. All Past to Present Mayors, No. 5:15-cv-00322-D; Hurt v. Roof, Nos. 5:15-cv-00335-D, 5:15-cv-00336-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00337-D; Hurt v. The South Carolina Hate, No. 5:15-cv-00341-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00342-D; Hurt v. Chief of Police, No. 5:15-cv-00356-D; Hurt v. 7th District, No. 5:15-cv-00409-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00412-D; Hurt v. United States, No. 5:15-cv-00413-D; Hurt v. Virginia, Nos. 5:15-cv-00416-D; Hurt v. The Center of the World, No. 5:15-cv-00440-D; Hurt v. United States, No. 5:15— cv-00469-D; Hurt v. ACLU, No. 5:15-cv-00470-D; Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, No. 5:15-cv-00487-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2015).

The district court also directed Hurt to show cause why a prefiling injunction should not issue. Rather than respond to the court’s order, Hurt filed his notice of appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory *253 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 show cause order Hurt seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and the motion to amend or correct. 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.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and directing Hurt to show cause why a prefiling injunction should not issue. We dismiss the appeal.

With respect to the dismissal of these actions as frivolous, we have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurt v. City of St. Louis, No. 5:15-cv-00310-D; Hurt v. All Past to Present Mayors, No. 5:15-cv-00322-D; Hurt v. Roof, Nos. 5:15-cv-00335-D, 5:15-cv-00336-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00337-D; Hurt v. The South Carolina Hate, No. 5:15-cv-00341-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00342-D; Hurt v. Chief of Police, No. 5:15-cv-00356-D; Hurt v. 7th District, No. 5:15-cv-00409-D; Hurt v. Int’l Criminal Court, No. 5:15-cv-00412-D; Hurt v. United States, No. 5:15-cv-00413-D; Hurt v. Virginia, Nos. 5:15-cv-00416-D; Hurt v. The Center of the World, No. 5:15-cv-00440-D; Hurt v. United States, No. 5:15— cv-00469-D; Hurt v. ACLU, No. 5:15-cv-00470-D; Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, No. 5:15-cv-00487-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2015).

The district court also directed Hurt to show cause why a prefiling injunction should not issue. Rather than respond to the court’s order, Hurt filed his notice of appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory *253 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 show cause order Hurt seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and the motion to amend or correct. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 F. App'x 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrone-hurt-v-the-city-of-st-louis-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack