The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6038•Leanthony T. Winston v. WILLIAM C. SMITH, Superintendent
22-6038Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 8, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6038
LEANTHONY T. WINSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM C. SMITH, Superintendent; ERNEST BOWER, Superintendent; TANYA
BLAIR, Captain/Supervisor; LIEUTENANT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT EVERETT;
SERGEANT BRINKLY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00285-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: May 16, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LeAnthony T. Winston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
LeAnthony T. Winston filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction in the district court, seeking release from imprisonment while his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending. Winston then noted an appeal of the district court’s
purported denial of the motion. However, the district court has issued no ruling pertaining
to Winston’s motion. Because there has been neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order entered in this case, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting “we have
jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders”). We
also deny Winston’s pending motions. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.