Holsey v. Pereira , 22 F. App'x 325 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-7277
    AARON HOLSEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MELANIE C. PEREIRA, individually, and as
    former Deputy Commissioner of Corrections for
    Maryland at 6776 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore,
    Maryland 21215; SUPERVISOR, Home Detention
    Unit, individually, and in his official capac-
    ity at 2100 Guilford Avenue, Baltimore, Mary-
    land 21218; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS
    HEADQUARTERS, 6776 Reisterstown Road, Balti-
    more, MD 21215; PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, individ-
    ually, and as Chairperson of the Maryland
    Parole Commission at 6776 Reisterstown Road,
    Baltimore, Maryland 21215; FRANK PAPPAS,
    individually, and as Maryland Parole Commis-
    sioner; MACEO M. WILLIAMS, individually, and
    as   Maryland    Parole   Commissioner;     RALPH
    ROBINSON, individually, and as Facility Admin-
    istrator   for    Baltimore   City    Pre-Release
    Facility, 926 Greenmount Avenue, Baltimore,
    Maryland 21202; D. THANIEL, individually, and
    as Supervisor of Classification Department at
    Baltimore City Pre-Release Unit; SUSAN T.
    DONAHUE, individually, and as Former Super-
    visor of Classification at Eastern Correc-
    tional Institution, Annex, 30420 Revells Neck
    Road, Westover, Maryland 21890; ALVIN MCCOY,
    individually, and as a captain assigned to the
    Baltimore   City    Pre-Release    Unit;   CARTER
    DONAWAY, individually, and as a work release
    counselor assigned to the Baltimore City Pre-
    Release Unit B; ELEU GATLING, individually,
    and as a work release counselor assigned to
    the Baltimore City Pre-Release Unit; C.
    WESTON, individually, and as a work release
    counselor assigned to the Baltimore City Pre-
    Release   Unit;    MICHAEL   BLOUNT,   Parole
    Commissioner,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
    01-898-JFM)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2001        Decided:   December 28, 2001
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
    General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Aaron Holsey appeals the district court’s order denying his
    motions for:   (1) a temporary restraining order; (2) a preliminary
    injunction; and (3) a default judgment.     We dismiss in part and
    affirm in part.
    The denial of a temporary restraining order is ordinarily not
    appealable absent exceptional circumstances.   Virginia v. Tenneco,
    Inc. 
    538 F.2d 1026
    , 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).     Because this case
    presents no exceptional circumstances, we decline to review the
    denial of Holsey’s request for a temporary restraining order and
    dismiss the appeal insofar as it pertains to that portion of the
    district court’s order.
    Insofar as Holsey appeals the denial of his request for a pre-
    liminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and the district
    court’s order and find no abuse of discretion.     Accordingly, we
    affirm that part of the order on the reasoning of the district
    court.   Holsey v. Pereira, No. CA-JFM-01-888 (D. Md. July 31,
    2001).
    To the extent that Holsey appeals that part of the district
    court’s order denying his motion for a default judgment, we dismiss
    the appeal as interlocutory.   This court may exercise jurisdiction
    only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (1994), and certain
    interlocutory and collateral orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (1994); Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohan v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S.
                          3
    541 (1949).   We dismiss that portion of the district court’s order
    denying the motion for a default judgment because it is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory order.
    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.
    DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-7277

Citation Numbers: 22 F. App'x 325

Judges: Luttig, Traxler, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/28/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024