Jeremiah Chamberlain v. VDOC ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7515
JEREMIAH CHAMBERLAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; H. S.
RICHESON; A. DAVID ROBINSON; DENISE MALONE; STEVEN HERRICK;
B. MARANO; M. COUNTS; KATHRYN HARTKA,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JANE DOE,
Defendant.
No. 21-7349
JEREMIAH CHAMBERLAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; H. S.
RICHESON; A. DAVID ROBINSON; DENISE MALONE; STEVEN HERRICK;
B. MARANO; M. COUNTS; KATHRYN HARTKA,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JANE DOE,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00045-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremiah Chamberlain, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jeremiah Chamberlain—a former inmate of the
Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”)—challenges two orders entered by the
district court in his pending civil action. First, Chamberlain appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, Chamberlain seeks to
appeal the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to the defendants on all but
one of his claims. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss these appeals.
Beginning with the district court’s order denying preliminary injunctive relief, we
observe that Chamberlain sought a preliminary injunction directing the VDOC and former
or current VDOC employees to treat his medical condition in a particular manner. After
Chamberlain noted his appeal from the order denying that requested relief, however, his
federal habeas petition was granted, and he was released from VDOC custody.
Accordingly, we dismiss as moot Chamberlain’s appeal from the district court’s order
denying a preliminary injunction. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir.
2009) (“[A]s a general rule, a prisoner’s transfer or release from a particular prison moots
his claims for injunctive . . . relief with respect to his incarceration there.”).
Turning to the district court’s summary judgment order, we conclude that the order
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See United States
v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “we have jurisdiction only over
final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders”). Consequently, we also
dismiss Chamberlain’s appeal from that order.
3
We therefore dismiss these consolidated appeals. We also deny Chamberlain’s
motions to expedite, supplement the record, and appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem
filed in No. 20-7515. 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