Nathaniel Webb v. John Godfrey ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7184 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7184
NATHANIEL R. WEBB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOHN GODFREY; MARSHALL PIKE; JANICE GRIMES; NURSE
MCCORMICK; MR. MARTIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03342-D)
Submitted: April 29, 2022 Decided: August 24, 2022
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel R. Webb, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7184 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel R. Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions
for default judgment and a preliminary injunction. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s denial
of Webb’s motion for default judgment is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Webb’s
requests for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the
district court’s denial of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947
F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020). “Abuse of discretion is a deferential standard, and we may
not reverse so long as the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the
record viewed in its entirety.” Id. (cleaned up).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Roe, 947 F.3d at 219 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that Webb failed to meet this burden. Moreover, despite
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7184 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/24/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Webb’s arguments to the contrary, the district court was not required to hold a hearing
prior to denying injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).
We therefore dismiss the portion of this appeal challenging the district court’s denial
of default judgment and affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. We deny as
moot Webb’s motions to appoint counsel and to expedite this court’s decision. 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,
AFFIRMED IN PART
3