Blaney v. Driscoll ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY S. BLANEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-6440
G. F. DRISCOLL, Law Librarian,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-98-1449-AM)
Submitted: September 29, 2000
Decided: October 13, 2000
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Vir-
ginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey S. Blaney appeals from the district court's decisions deny-
ing injunctive relief, refusing to appoint counsel, denying leave to
amend, and entering partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee
G.F. Driscoll, the law librarian at Virginia Beach City Jail. We grant
Blaney's motion to amend his notice of appeal, which cures one juris-
dictional defect affecting his claims. Nevertheless, we dismiss his
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
After filing this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action,
Blaney was transferred from Virginia Beach to an Illinois prison;
thus, his requests for injunctions against Driscoll are moot, see Wein-
stein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975) (per curiam), as is his
motion for an injunction barring his transfer to Illinois, see Railway
Labor Executives Ass'n v. Chesapeake W. Ry., 915 F.2d 116, 118-19
(4th Cir. 1990). As for the district court's procedural rulings, this
Court ordinarily may not entertain interlocutory appeals from the
refusal to appoint counsel, see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964
(4th Cir. 1987), or the denial of leave to amend, see Kahn v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, N.A., 91 F.3d 385, 388 (2d Cir. 1996); Kartell v.
Blue Shield, 687 F.2d 543, 551 (1st Cir. 1982). Finally, the order
granting partial summary judgment is not properly before the Court
because the district court has not certified this partial judgment for
immediate appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
For these reasons, we dismiss Blaney's appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2