
    Joseph CRUSSIAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee, and Medstar Family Choice, Inc., Intervenor.
    No. 16-2191
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 26, 2017
    Decided: May 5, 2017
    Joseph Crussiah, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Francis DeTurris, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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., 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  