Anthony Dacre v. Lieutenant Fleming , 489 F. App'x 708 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7058
ANTHONY DACRE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT FLEMING; SERGEANT MITCHELL; SERGEANT WILSON;
SERGEANT RATTCLIFF; SERGEANT REYNOLDS,
Defendants – Appellees,
DAN BRAXTON, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center,
Party-in-Interest – Appellee,
and
HOGGE, Guard; BRYANT, Guard; GREEN, Guard,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00055-SGW-RSB)
Submitted: November 9, 2012 Decided: November 21, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Dacre, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dacre appeals the district court’s order
denying his motions for a preliminary injunction, a temporary
restraining order (TRO), an extension of time, to amend his
complaint, and his petition for a writ of mandamus in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We dismiss the appeal.
Dacre’s action alleged that, while at Keen Mountain
Correctional Center, officers had threatened him; the medical
staff had withheld his medication, cane, and transcutaneous
electrical nerve stimulation unit; and officials had interfered
with Dacre’s mail. However, because Dacre was transferred from
Keen Mountain Correctional Center to Sussex I State Prison
following the denial of his motions for preliminary injunctive
relief, those requests are now moot. We therefore dismiss his
appeal as to the denial of injunctive relief for that reason.
Dacre also appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for a TRO and his non-dispositive motions. His appeal of
these motions is interlocutory because the district court’s
order is not a final disposition of Dacre’s claims. See Penn-
Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2008)
(defining final order); Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d
1026, 1029 (4th Cir. 1976) (stating that, absent exceptional
circumstances, TRO order not immediately appealable).
Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
3
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
4