Greene v. Johnson , 78 F. App'x 282 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7055
JOSEPH DONALD LEE GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director; RUFUS FLEMING,
Regional Director; H. R. POWELL, Warden; POPE
GRIZZARD, Operations Officer; J. H. BONEY,
Mailroom Supervisor; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
ASHBURN, Mailroom Clerk; JAMES BEALE, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-611-2)
Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Joseph Donald Lee Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Donald Lee Greene, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of
counsel, motion for default judgment, and a temporary restraining
order and/or a preliminary injunction. We dismiss in part and
affirm in part.
As to the district court’s order denying Greene’s requests for
appointment of counsel and motion for default judgment, these are
not final orders, and are not appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000);
see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987). We
therefore dismiss the appeal as to those orders as interlocutory.
To the extent Greene appeals the denial of a temporary
restraining order, such denial is not ordinarily appealable.
Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).
Because the case presents no exceptional circumstances, we decline
to review the denial of a temporary restraining order, and dismiss
the appeal as it pertains to that order.
Finally, to the extent that Greene appeals the denial of his
request for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm that part of the order on the reasoning of
the district court. See Greene v. Johnson, No. CA-02-611-2 (E.D.
Va. July 7, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
3