Kenneth Awe v. Harold Clarke , 535 F. App'x 228 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6623
KENNETH V. AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VDOC,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00511-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth V. Awe appeals the district court’s order
dismissing some defendants to his civil action and denying Awe’s
motions for a preliminary injunction, appointment of counsel,
production of documents, and a venue transfer. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The portion of
the district court’s order dismissing the action as to some
defendants and denying Awe’s motions for counsel, discovery, and
a venue transfer is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 541 (4th Cir.
2004) (discovery orders); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967
(4th Cir. 1987) (orders denying appointment of counsel);
Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180
(4th Cir. 1974) (order denying venue transfer). Accordingly, we
dismiss these aspects of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court’s denial of Awe’s request for a
preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable. 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Awe’s informal brief does not challenge the
2
basis for the district court’s denial of an injunction, Awe has
forfeited appellate review of this portion of the court’s order,
and we affirm this portion of the appeal.
In summary, we affirm the portion of the court’s order
denying a preliminary injunction and dismiss the appeal as to
all remaining issues. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3