Montgomery v. Medlock ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7145
MICHAEL WAYNE MONTGOMERY, a/k/a Shaka Macumba
Zulu X, a/k/a Thomas E. Howard,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 95-7908
MICHAEL WAYNE MONTGOMERY, a/k/a Shaka Macumba
Zulu X, a/k/a Thomas E. Howard,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-93-2302-CV-6-3AK)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 95-7145 dismissed in part and affirmed in part and No. 95-7908
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Wayne Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson,
Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Montgomery appeals, in appeal number 95-7145, from the
district court's order denying his request for preliminary injunc-
tive relief as well as his various pretrial motions filed in con-
nection with his complaint filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). In
appeal number 95-7908, Montgomery appeals from the district court's
final order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny
relief on the merits. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain inter-
locutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). We
find that the order appealed in number 95-7145 is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory order of collateral order,
except to the extent that it denies Montgomery's request for a pre-
liminary injunction. Moreover, except to the extent that Montgomery
requests injunctive relief, the appeal is moot in view of the
court's subsequent denial of relief on the merits. We find, how-
ever, that the district court committed no reversible error by
denying injunctive relief. In appeal number 95-7145, we therefore
grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and affirm that
portion of the district court's order which denies injunctive
relief, but dismiss the remainder of the appeal.
Regarding appeal number 95-7908, we have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the ap-
3
peal on the reasoning of the district court. Montgomery v. Medlock,
No. CA-93-2302-CV-6-3AK (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 1995). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
No. 95-7145 - DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 95-7908 - DISMISSED
4