Butler v. United States Department of Justice , 119 F. App'x 566 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7420
JAMES A. BUTLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF
PRISONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 03-7421
JAMES A. BUTLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN SHEARIN; T. HART; JOHN DOE; EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-708-WMN; CA-03-1798)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
No. 03-7420, dismissed; No. 03-7421, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Matthew Wayne Mellady, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Annapolis Junction, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
James A. Butler appeals from the denial of his motion to
stay (No. 03-7420) and the imposition of a pre-filing injunction
(No. 03-7421). We affirm.
On June 18, 2003, James A. Butler filed a complaint
seeking injunctive relief requiring an adequate law library in his
prison. On June 25, the district court entered an order
sanctioning Butler for filing “vexatious” litigation and limiting
the number of cases Butler may have pending on the active docket.
Butler appealed. After a close review of the record, we find no
reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in entering the pre-filing injunction. See Graham v. Riddle, 554
F.2d 133, 134-35 (4th Cir. 1977). Thus, we affirm.
At the time of the entry of the pre-filing injunction,
one of Butler’s pending cases was Butler v. United States, No.
CA-03-708. On July 16, 2004, Butler filed a motion seeking to
place the case on inactive status, in order to elevate another of
his cases to the active docket. The district court found that
Butler failed to show sufficient cause for the relief he sought and
denied the motion. Butler appealed. We find that this order was
a non-final, interlocutory order. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- 3 -
In sum, we affirm the order in No. 03-7421 and dismiss
the appeal in No. 03-7420. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
No. 03-7420, DISMISSED;
No. 03-7421, AFFIRMED
- 4 -